I don't plan to get overly involved in town politics on this site (unless people are intersted), but do check out yesterday's posting by Supervisor Feiner on his blog, titled "Budget Cuts To Be Made in 2010":
http://pfeiner.blogspot.com/2009/10/budget-cuts-to-be-made-in-2010.html
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Curbstones and Parking
A comment from Lynn Klein Riotto which deserves its own "front page" posting:
Tony and I stayed at the meeting until the bitter end. We did discuss the deplorable condition of the curbstones. I suggested that the town should have done a better job supervising the work done by the outside contractor. I spoke of my experience this summer walking on the lower portion of Mercer Avenue between Findlay and Charlotte where I encountered the roadway crumbling under my feet. Two days later, in the aftermath of Hurricane Bill, the street actually buckled in the very same location. The roadway beds in Manor Woods are being compromised by water seeping under the unfinished curbstones. With winter setting in, this situation can only get far worse. This was a case of the Town being penny wise and pound foolish in choosing a contractor who did not do a thorough job. We will now first have to do an expensive repair job to remedy the problems caused by the shoddy work. Wasted tax dollars. I promised Paul Feiner an email describing the situation with photos and followed up the very same evening. I received a reply from Paul the next morning with a copy to the Commissioner of Public Works, Victor Carosi. Mr. Corosi emailed me earlier this evening saying he will look into our concerns. Tony and I had offered to accompany Mr. Corosi on a tour of the neighborhood but apparently, he is planning to send out an inspector and not planning to include us. More Town run-around?
Meantime, I also go an email earlier from Chief Kapica with petition forms to be signed by the neighbors requesting the Town install parking signs restricting the parking on all the streets in Manor Woods. Attached is a copy of his email. Please let me know if there are enough neighbors willing to sign this before I go out door to door. I am happy to organize the petition drive if this is what everyone would like.
"As discussed at our recent meeting on October 15th, attached is a copy of a generic petition that can be used to request that parking restrictions be enacted on any street. Since placing restrictions on a few streets will only push the problem to those that do not have similar restrictions, I would like to have them apply to the entire area if possible. I would like to accomplish this by individual location so each petition should be for one specific street only. Please recall that since the restrictions will affect all residents, we require a fairly significant majority of the families residing on the street to request that they be placed. Although we have each address in our database, to help us determine this, we ask that you specify the total number of families residing on the street in the appropriate location on the petition. Should you require additional space for signatures on a particular street, please use a completely new petition. DO NOT attach an additional list of signatures to a petition since this does not ensure that the person signing read the petition. After all signatures have been collected, simply enter the number of pages for that street in the upper right hand corner of the petition (i.e., 1 of 2; 2 of 2, etc.). We only require one person’s signature per family. If two families reside at one residence and both are in favor of the restrictions, there should be two signatures for that address. Only a single signature per family per address shall be counted. Please feel free to call my office or email me should you have any questions. I can be reached directly at 682-5340. Completed petitions may either be mailed to my attention at Greenburgh Police Headquarters, 188 Tarrytown Road, White Plains, New York 10607, or dropped off at the main desk for me any time of the day." Chief John Kapica
Lynn Klein Riotto, 63 Mercer Avenue
Tony and I stayed at the meeting until the bitter end. We did discuss the deplorable condition of the curbstones. I suggested that the town should have done a better job supervising the work done by the outside contractor. I spoke of my experience this summer walking on the lower portion of Mercer Avenue between Findlay and Charlotte where I encountered the roadway crumbling under my feet. Two days later, in the aftermath of Hurricane Bill, the street actually buckled in the very same location. The roadway beds in Manor Woods are being compromised by water seeping under the unfinished curbstones. With winter setting in, this situation can only get far worse. This was a case of the Town being penny wise and pound foolish in choosing a contractor who did not do a thorough job. We will now first have to do an expensive repair job to remedy the problems caused by the shoddy work. Wasted tax dollars. I promised Paul Feiner an email describing the situation with photos and followed up the very same evening. I received a reply from Paul the next morning with a copy to the Commissioner of Public Works, Victor Carosi. Mr. Corosi emailed me earlier this evening saying he will look into our concerns. Tony and I had offered to accompany Mr. Corosi on a tour of the neighborhood but apparently, he is planning to send out an inspector and not planning to include us. More Town run-around?
Meantime, I also go an email earlier from Chief Kapica with petition forms to be signed by the neighbors requesting the Town install parking signs restricting the parking on all the streets in Manor Woods. Attached is a copy of his email. Please let me know if there are enough neighbors willing to sign this before I go out door to door. I am happy to organize the petition drive if this is what everyone would like.
"As discussed at our recent meeting on October 15th, attached is a copy of a generic petition that can be used to request that parking restrictions be enacted on any street. Since placing restrictions on a few streets will only push the problem to those that do not have similar restrictions, I would like to have them apply to the entire area if possible. I would like to accomplish this by individual location so each petition should be for one specific street only. Please recall that since the restrictions will affect all residents, we require a fairly significant majority of the families residing on the street to request that they be placed. Although we have each address in our database, to help us determine this, we ask that you specify the total number of families residing on the street in the appropriate location on the petition. Should you require additional space for signatures on a particular street, please use a completely new petition. DO NOT attach an additional list of signatures to a petition since this does not ensure that the person signing read the petition. After all signatures have been collected, simply enter the number of pages for that street in the upper right hand corner of the petition (i.e., 1 of 2; 2 of 2, etc.). We only require one person’s signature per family. If two families reside at one residence and both are in favor of the restrictions, there should be two signatures for that address. Only a single signature per family per address shall be counted. Please feel free to call my office or email me should you have any questions. I can be reached directly at 682-5340. Completed petitions may either be mailed to my attention at Greenburgh Police Headquarters, 188 Tarrytown Road, White Plains, New York 10607, or dropped off at the main desk for me any time of the day." Chief John Kapica
Lynn Klein Riotto, 63 Mercer Avenue
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Curbing Issue
I've heard that the forum continued long after I left at 9 pm and that the issue of the curbing stones was discussed. Does anyone want to summarize that topic, or anything else of specific concern to our neighborhood that was raised?
Dan
Dan
Comment from Luis
I'm experimenting with the format and I welcome any suggestions. I think I'll repost any substantive comments (per request or my own initiative) as new posts so they will appear on the "front page" (instead of linked comments).
Here's some research from Luis Polit that certainly warrants reading:
There was a resident of Manor Woods at the Town Hall meeting on Thursday evening who suggested the implementation of a parking permit system to alleviate the problem of non-Manor Woods' resident commuters using parking spaces along Caterson Terrace, Holland Place, Charlotte Place, Mercer Avenue, and Columbia Avenue South town roads. I did some research – this is what I found out. As it turns out, state legislation calls for the Town of Eastchester and the Town of Harrison to have a fee based parking permit system for certain streets within the respective town boundaries (see section 1662-C and 1662-B of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law). Both towns have provisions requiring a certain percentage of spaces be made available to non- residents - 15% for Eastchester and 20% for Harrison. Here are some considerations for the residents of Manor Woods.
The areas in the Town of Eastchester and Town of Harrison are much more affected by commuter parking than is Manor Woods and there is no other viable means to address it, other than through state legislation. The residents of Manor Woods may want to consider whether the commuter parking problem is serious enough to warrant special state legislation.
State legislation may require the residents to guaranty more spaces for outsiders that are presently depriving residents of their ability to park in front of their homes along the affected streets.
Moreover, Manor Woods residents would now be required to pay a fee to park on their own streets.
A much simpler approach would be to have parking signs having temporary restrictions to discourage commuters to park on the effected streets. The parking signs will compromise aesthetics as residents in the past have objected.
October 18, 2009 6:25 PM
Here's some research from Luis Polit that certainly warrants reading:
There was a resident of Manor Woods at the Town Hall meeting on Thursday evening who suggested the implementation of a parking permit system to alleviate the problem of non-Manor Woods' resident commuters using parking spaces along Caterson Terrace, Holland Place, Charlotte Place, Mercer Avenue, and Columbia Avenue South town roads. I did some research – this is what I found out. As it turns out, state legislation calls for the Town of Eastchester and the Town of Harrison to have a fee based parking permit system for certain streets within the respective town boundaries (see section 1662-C and 1662-B of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law). Both towns have provisions requiring a certain percentage of spaces be made available to non- residents - 15% for Eastchester and 20% for Harrison. Here are some considerations for the residents of Manor Woods.
The areas in the Town of Eastchester and Town of Harrison are much more affected by commuter parking than is Manor Woods and there is no other viable means to address it, other than through state legislation. The residents of Manor Woods may want to consider whether the commuter parking problem is serious enough to warrant special state legislation.
State legislation may require the residents to guaranty more spaces for outsiders that are presently depriving residents of their ability to park in front of their homes along the affected streets.
Moreover, Manor Woods residents would now be required to pay a fee to park on their own streets.
A much simpler approach would be to have parking signs having temporary restrictions to discourage commuters to park on the effected streets. The parking signs will compromise aesthetics as residents in the past have objected.
October 18, 2009 6:25 PM
Friday, October 16, 2009
Last night's Manor Woods community meeting (10/15)
I attended most of the community meeting last night at the Highview School (Oct. 15, 2009). The genesis of the meeting was the request of Grace and some other residents to Supervisor Feiner that the Town Board and representatives of the police department convene to hear the concerns of Manor Woods residents after the late September car break-in spree. Before my account and impressions, I have to remark on the astounding attendance. I went to the community meeting last spring and very few Manor Woods residents showed up then. That gathering turned into a forum for seniors residing in the Hartsdale Ave. apartment building and the discussion was focused almost exclusively on the E. Hartsdale Ave. traffic situation, with particular emphasis on the Wilson-Hartsdale Ave-Central Ave. area. Last night's demographic was very different. It seemed as though a majority of neighborhood homes were represented. Supervisor Feiner remarked about it being the largest such community meeting he's seen in his (nearly two decades?) term in office.
While the Board Members attended (excepting Councilman Sheehan - ironically, because he's the only Hartsdale resident on the Board), Police Chief Kapica dominated the proceedings, responding to the audience's questions almost exclusively. The in-coming chief (who's name I don't remember) who will take over in late November, deferred to his superior and rarely spoke, except to affirm the Chief.
The Chief's initial remarks focused on contextualizing the recent incidents as "crimes of opportunity" presented by unlocked cars, including the theft of one vehicle with its keys inside. The Chief, the incoming chief, and Councilman Morgan - a former detective - repeatedly emphasized that such "minor" crimes were facilitated by the carelessness or inattention of residents who left doors unlocked or windows open. Typical robbers, they said, will look for these easy pickings. True break-ins, they said, are very rare. They advised residents to take preventative measures like locking cars and houses, putting in motion sensor lighting in the backs of houses, being alert to strangers, organizing neighborhood watch through the police dept. liaison.
Because of the nature of these thefts, the police dept. did not view the recent incidents as a crime wave. Instead they saw these as isolated incidents and did not take evidence or investigate "crime scenes." The issue of one Lexus that appears to have been "professionally" stolen a few days after the first incidents did not disturb this conclusion.
The second major topic was traffic and parking concerns, particularly the commuter cars parked all day near the confluence of Caterson, Charlotte and Holland. The opinion of homeowners in that area seemed to turn toward imposing a parking restriction in the mornings. The Chief was amenable, but stressed gaining street-wide approval, via petition, before proceeding and considering the consequences, such as the impact on parking for local residents and their guests or workers, and the likelihood that the commuters would just park elsewhere in the neighborhood. Further progress on this issue was left to the residents to decide if and how to proceed.
A third issue, of less pertinence to the original purpose of the meetings, was Greenburgh's apparently unique system of having its police force trained as EMTs, instead of having a separate civilian EMT/ambulance staff. The Chief emphasized the positives (having police first responders trained as EMTS) and the negatives (emergency visits drawing the attention of police officers on duty away from policing). Some residents questioned whether volunteer or professional corps were a better, more economical approach. This seemed to be a very sensitive issue to the Chief and Supervisor, who firmly rejected any challenge to the status quo. I left at this point, having listened for two hours.
My reactions:
1. Crime Issue: There seemed to be a mixed message. The Chief's advice all seemed to be reasonable and common sense: lock doors etc. However, he also mentioned in passing (and I didn't quite follow this) that these types of incidents were part of a larger phenomenon in central Westchester. The "casualness" of the incidents, too, doesn't quite fit in with the "professional" theft of the Lexus a few days later. I asked whether the police dept had taken any affirmative measures in response to these incidents. The Chief responded first by describing the dept.'s general reaction when it perceived a "crime wave" by posting plainsclothes officers, etc. When I asked if the department had in fact taken these pro-active measures in the last month, he indicated that had. This seemed to contradict his prefatory remarks that these incidents were in fact not a crime wave, but isolated "opportunity" crimes.
The Chief spent some time encouraging residents to report suspicious activity and strangers. I was tempted, but desisted, from remarking that the one time I did make this type of call, I was quickly told to forget about it. Last year, I observed two early-middle aged men strolling down Mercer Ave. with a large black bag ostensibly pulling recyclables out of peoples' trash. I had never seen these two before - nor since. They definitely did not look homeless. I wondered if they were casing the neighborhood. I called the police dept. and was summarily told they had a right to pick through peoples' garbage once it was placed next to the street and they couldn't do anything.
2. The Caterson/Charlotte parking issue is a major concern because of the narrowness of the streets and the amount of traffic in the mornings. Because there are no sidewalks, I am forced when I walk back and forth from the train station to weave around these parked cars and bob between them to avoid oncoming traffic that is funneled into the one open lane. During slippery conditions and also dark evenings in the winter, this situation is especially hazardous. Cars must also anticipate other cars approaching from the opposite direction, sometimes not visible behind the crest of the hill, and then move over and stop to let the other car pass, hopefully avoiding pedestrians while maneuvering. Thankfully, the homeowners most directly impacted want to deal with this issue. The one concern, which the chief raised, was the probability that the commuters will park further into the neighborhood (probably in front of my house on Mercer.)
3. I found the EMT/police issue the least convincing discussion. The Supervisor and Chief did not present any statistics to justify the unique Greenburgh approach. The Supervisor vaguely referred to an article many years ago which, he claims, said that it was great to have a heart attack in Greenburgh (I assume he meant the survival rate was high). Perhaps we do have the "best" system, but it would have been much more persuasive if they had come prepared with some numbers. Instead, on this issue, the Chief relied on his authority and experience to make his argument. Perhaps The Wire has given me unrealistic expectations about the statistical analysis approach to police operations.
In my view, a constant undercurrent of the Chief's statements was a plea for additional manpower resources and funding for the police dept. The need to dispatch several on-duty police officers to each emergency call (because of the unique dual-role of Greenburgh officers) left the rest of the town under-patrolled during such emergencies. The insinuation was that we would all be better off if additional funding provided for more officers on the streets at all times. But when some residents suggested reassigning the EMT responsibility from the Police, the Chief reacted very defensively. The Chief insisted that instituting a traditional civilian EMT system would be very expensive (he threw out the number $5,000,000), but did not discuss the full costs to the taxpayer in terms of police training, time off-policing for training etc and whether officers were paid extra (including the impact on benefits) arising from the police handling EMT responsibilities.
Any comments/corrections to this account?
Dan from Mercer Ave.
While the Board Members attended (excepting Councilman Sheehan - ironically, because he's the only Hartsdale resident on the Board), Police Chief Kapica dominated the proceedings, responding to the audience's questions almost exclusively. The in-coming chief (who's name I don't remember) who will take over in late November, deferred to his superior and rarely spoke, except to affirm the Chief.
The Chief's initial remarks focused on contextualizing the recent incidents as "crimes of opportunity" presented by unlocked cars, including the theft of one vehicle with its keys inside. The Chief, the incoming chief, and Councilman Morgan - a former detective - repeatedly emphasized that such "minor" crimes were facilitated by the carelessness or inattention of residents who left doors unlocked or windows open. Typical robbers, they said, will look for these easy pickings. True break-ins, they said, are very rare. They advised residents to take preventative measures like locking cars and houses, putting in motion sensor lighting in the backs of houses, being alert to strangers, organizing neighborhood watch through the police dept. liaison.
Because of the nature of these thefts, the police dept. did not view the recent incidents as a crime wave. Instead they saw these as isolated incidents and did not take evidence or investigate "crime scenes." The issue of one Lexus that appears to have been "professionally" stolen a few days after the first incidents did not disturb this conclusion.
The second major topic was traffic and parking concerns, particularly the commuter cars parked all day near the confluence of Caterson, Charlotte and Holland. The opinion of homeowners in that area seemed to turn toward imposing a parking restriction in the mornings. The Chief was amenable, but stressed gaining street-wide approval, via petition, before proceeding and considering the consequences, such as the impact on parking for local residents and their guests or workers, and the likelihood that the commuters would just park elsewhere in the neighborhood. Further progress on this issue was left to the residents to decide if and how to proceed.
A third issue, of less pertinence to the original purpose of the meetings, was Greenburgh's apparently unique system of having its police force trained as EMTs, instead of having a separate civilian EMT/ambulance staff. The Chief emphasized the positives (having police first responders trained as EMTS) and the negatives (emergency visits drawing the attention of police officers on duty away from policing). Some residents questioned whether volunteer or professional corps were a better, more economical approach. This seemed to be a very sensitive issue to the Chief and Supervisor, who firmly rejected any challenge to the status quo. I left at this point, having listened for two hours.
My reactions:
1. Crime Issue: There seemed to be a mixed message. The Chief's advice all seemed to be reasonable and common sense: lock doors etc. However, he also mentioned in passing (and I didn't quite follow this) that these types of incidents were part of a larger phenomenon in central Westchester. The "casualness" of the incidents, too, doesn't quite fit in with the "professional" theft of the Lexus a few days later. I asked whether the police dept had taken any affirmative measures in response to these incidents. The Chief responded first by describing the dept.'s general reaction when it perceived a "crime wave" by posting plainsclothes officers, etc. When I asked if the department had in fact taken these pro-active measures in the last month, he indicated that had. This seemed to contradict his prefatory remarks that these incidents were in fact not a crime wave, but isolated "opportunity" crimes.
The Chief spent some time encouraging residents to report suspicious activity and strangers. I was tempted, but desisted, from remarking that the one time I did make this type of call, I was quickly told to forget about it. Last year, I observed two early-middle aged men strolling down Mercer Ave. with a large black bag ostensibly pulling recyclables out of peoples' trash. I had never seen these two before - nor since. They definitely did not look homeless. I wondered if they were casing the neighborhood. I called the police dept. and was summarily told they had a right to pick through peoples' garbage once it was placed next to the street and they couldn't do anything.
2. The Caterson/Charlotte parking issue is a major concern because of the narrowness of the streets and the amount of traffic in the mornings. Because there are no sidewalks, I am forced when I walk back and forth from the train station to weave around these parked cars and bob between them to avoid oncoming traffic that is funneled into the one open lane. During slippery conditions and also dark evenings in the winter, this situation is especially hazardous. Cars must also anticipate other cars approaching from the opposite direction, sometimes not visible behind the crest of the hill, and then move over and stop to let the other car pass, hopefully avoiding pedestrians while maneuvering. Thankfully, the homeowners most directly impacted want to deal with this issue. The one concern, which the chief raised, was the probability that the commuters will park further into the neighborhood (probably in front of my house on Mercer.)
3. I found the EMT/police issue the least convincing discussion. The Supervisor and Chief did not present any statistics to justify the unique Greenburgh approach. The Supervisor vaguely referred to an article many years ago which, he claims, said that it was great to have a heart attack in Greenburgh (I assume he meant the survival rate was high). Perhaps we do have the "best" system, but it would have been much more persuasive if they had come prepared with some numbers. Instead, on this issue, the Chief relied on his authority and experience to make his argument. Perhaps The Wire has given me unrealistic expectations about the statistical analysis approach to police operations.
In my view, a constant undercurrent of the Chief's statements was a plea for additional manpower resources and funding for the police dept. The need to dispatch several on-duty police officers to each emergency call (because of the unique dual-role of Greenburgh officers) left the rest of the town under-patrolled during such emergencies. The insinuation was that we would all be better off if additional funding provided for more officers on the streets at all times. But when some residents suggested reassigning the EMT responsibility from the Police, the Chief reacted very defensively. The Chief insisted that instituting a traditional civilian EMT system would be very expensive (he threw out the number $5,000,000), but did not discuss the full costs to the taxpayer in terms of police training, time off-policing for training etc and whether officers were paid extra (including the impact on benefits) arising from the police handling EMT responsibilities.
Any comments/corrections to this account?
Dan from Mercer Ave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)