Back in the 19th century, at least in the U.S. South, there was no concept of a secret ballot when voting. Voters stood in line, had their names checked off the rolls, and handed in a colored ballot supplied by the party whom the voter allied with. Everyone in town, or at least in line, knew who everyone else was voting for.
Welcome to the 2010 voting experience in Hartsdale. Voting with the new machines used for the first time this year involved the following steps: 1. Check in at the desk and sign next to the name listed on the rolls; 2. A nice older lady hands over a paper ballot that must have been 8.5"x 24"; 3. go over to a rickety tall bistro size table divided into four triangles about 12"x12"x12" which included a 6"x8" piece of plastic (a magnifying lens?); 4. use the black felt type pen provided to fill in the circles next to the chosen candidate; 5. hand the ballot over to the officials minding the machine as she tries to roll the ballot into the slot at the top.
I remember from ancient times (i.e., last year) that voters had a moment of privacy behind a curtain where we could contemplate the ballot, flick down the switches next to the selected candidates' names and pull triumphantly on the lever as the curtain flew open and the switches reset. This system gave the voter the sense of complete privacy and the impression (maybe deluded) that the vote was confidential. Under the current system all such privacy is lost. Anyone can walk by the rickety table and observe the circles each voter is filling in as they awkwardly try to manipulate the long rectangular ballot on the small triangular workspace. Furthermore, nothing prevents the machine attendant from observing the voter's choices.
Was it intentional or just negligence that the County (or is it town?) Board of Elections to choose a system that sacrifices the secret ballot?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Hartsdale Election Day Choices: Living with "The 20 Year Rule"
Elected offices are a zero sum game. New elected offices are not being legislated into existence in Hartsdale. Consequently, no new jobs are created during elections, only the identity of a bench warmer is selected to decorate the same worn chair. Only when an officeholder retires or, very rarely, is defeated, those officeholders sitting at the lower end of electoral dining room are allowed to move one seat closer to the seat of honor at the head or the table. Hartsdale voters are fortunate that we have to reupholster very rarely.
This Hartsdale voter is very impressed by the remarkable talent of local elected officials to cling to seats they obviously find comfortable and cushy. TS, for example, has won elections every two years over the past twenty years to hold onto his coveted office. He is still a relatively young man and has the potential to use his skills to challenge Robert Byrd's 57 year record for officeholding. Our Congressperson, Nita Lowey, unfortunately will have no such opportunity. Althoughshe and her constituents believe that her accomplishments during her past 22 years in Congress warrant giving her another 2 years to achieve even more, her age of 73 will preclude any Byrd-like nesting in the Rayburn office building. (One anticipates with nervous-excitement the shaken-soda bottle like spurt of chaos her retirement will have on Westchester politics, should that day every come).
There are some surprise shifts in the Hartsdale electoral glacier this year. Our state assemblyman Richard Brodsky will be leaving Albany after 28 years, following his very unsuccessful stab at running for NY Attorney General. The candidate to replace him? Why it's attorney Tom Abinanti who's finishing up 20 years as our Westchester County Legislator!
Sometimes the voters enforce the 20 year rule with a vengeance. Four years ago, Republican Nick Spano narrowly lost his state Senate seat after 20 years to Democrat Andrea Stewart-Cousins. Today's election will determine whether Stewart-Cousins can continue on the path toward the double decade tenure that is the right of any Westchester elected official. Of course, the most dramatic, surprise came last year when Andy Spano lost to Rob Astorino after his he held his office for a disappointing 12 years. Mr. Spano was 73 when he failed in his quest for a fourth four year term and had been in public service for many years prior, so we'll give me credit for 20 years anyway.
This Hartsdale voter is very impressed by the remarkable talent of local elected officials to cling to seats they obviously find comfortable and cushy. TS, for example, has won elections every two years over the past twenty years to hold onto his coveted office. He is still a relatively young man and has the potential to use his skills to challenge Robert Byrd's 57 year record for officeholding. Our Congressperson, Nita Lowey, unfortunately will have no such opportunity. Althoughshe and her constituents believe that her accomplishments during her past 22 years in Congress warrant giving her another 2 years to achieve even more, her age of 73 will preclude any Byrd-like nesting in the Rayburn office building. (One anticipates with nervous-excitement the shaken-soda bottle like spurt of chaos her retirement will have on Westchester politics, should that day every come).
There are some surprise shifts in the Hartsdale electoral glacier this year. Our state assemblyman Richard Brodsky will be leaving Albany after 28 years, following his very unsuccessful stab at running for NY Attorney General. The candidate to replace him? Why it's attorney Tom Abinanti who's finishing up 20 years as our Westchester County Legislator!
Sometimes the voters enforce the 20 year rule with a vengeance. Four years ago, Republican Nick Spano narrowly lost his state Senate seat after 20 years to Democrat Andrea Stewart-Cousins. Today's election will determine whether Stewart-Cousins can continue on the path toward the double decade tenure that is the right of any Westchester elected official. Of course, the most dramatic, surprise came last year when Andy Spano lost to Rob Astorino after his he held his office for a disappointing 12 years. Mr. Spano was 73 when he failed in his quest for a fourth four year term and had been in public service for many years prior, so we'll give me credit for 20 years anyway.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Town Tax Increases Announced - Hooray!
This past week, the Town Supervisor (herein "TS") posted on his blog (http://pfeiner.blogspot.com/2010/10/budget-message-2011.html ) to explain the new budget and accompanying tax increases. The bottom line is that for Hartsdale (and the Town "outside" as a whole), the budget is increasing 7.09%, but, through the magic of drawing on town reserves, our taxes town taxes will increase "only" 4.5%* [editor's note: do NOT bring up the fact that CPI-U for the past 12 months is 1.2%]. Assuming that all our other taxing entities will keep pace (we must always remember that town taxes are only a small portion of our total tax bill!), that means, for my typical Manor Woods home, my property bill will increase the customary $800. Of course Town taxes will be less than $200 of this amount, so I should not even bother to complain and just accept it with a wan smile. (In light of big certiorai claims losses impacting Central 7, however, I have to assume that the increase for the schools, the largest piece of our budget puzzle, will be even higher than 4.5% - but this is rank and baseless speculation on my part.)
[* Mamaroneck announced an increase of 2.2%, btw - http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010220333; Yorktown announced 2% - http://yorktown.lohudblogs.com/ , so Greenburgh may still be #1!]
TS assigns the blame for these increases elsewhere: employee benefits/pensions and certiorai claims. In fact, TS asserts there would be no tax increase but for the temerity of unpatriotic taxpaying property owners (presumably business as well as residential) to whine that their taxes are too high and...for shame, to actually prevail in their claim for tax reductions against the town and.. get this, actually collect refunds! Public Enemy #1 singled out for public shaming are the Highpoint Apts (See http://pfeiner.blogspot.com/2010/10/should-town-reassess-properties-10.html ). [Note: the pejorative adjectives are my own, and not TS's]. TS of course does not address the validity of certiorai claims against the town, sending the message to the rest of us that (1) taxpayers should just accept the town's assessment of taxes on their property like meek lambs and pay up, and (2) it is selfish and damaging to the commonweal to seek a tax reduction (no matter how just) because that just dumps the burden for the budget on our neighbors. In his defense, TS is now frequently raising the idea of tax reassessment. This "testing of the winds" is furthered by an interview given by the Town Assessor to the Journal News this past week in support of reassessment. I may hazard to guess that TS and the Assessor would not now be suggesting reassessment if they felt it would actually lead to tax decreases for most homeowners. Instead, the goal is explicitly to forestall future certiorai claims. I also suspect that an unstated but desired benefit is that the reassessment will create a one-time freebie tax increase for the Board, without having to actually pass an increase on the record in the budget, when the reassessment takes effect increasing everyone's house values - but I may be completely wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about).
OK, we should blame our selfish neighbors and business owners who are costing us $5 million, but there are other miscreants: public sector employees! TS throws these individuals under a Bee-line bus, informing us: "pension costs have gone up by 36% for the Employee Retirement System (ERS) and 24% for the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS). (The Town has no control over these percentages.) This equates to a pension cost increase of $1.0 million. In addition, health care costs increased by 15%, which equates to an increase of $1.4 million." Notice the crucial parenthetical: "THE TOWN HAS NO CONTROL OVER THESE PERCENTAGES." This is the usual exonerating comment accompanying all announcements of tax increases by TS - "it's out of my control." Does this mean that TS never has control over ERS and PFRS, and these increases are mandated by the State? Perhaps, I just have no idea.
Is there room for cutting budget: of course there are! that is, if you are a heartless fiend who relishes eliminating town services for seniors and special needs children [Message received loud and clear: just shut up already, it's less $200 more dollars and if you dare to complain about your prop. taxes, you are a selfish, crudmudgeonly ogre!]
Is there any mention about the Town's $834,000 liability being paid out over 5 years arising from our workers comp insurance fiasco? Um, no. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010110327
Is there any mention of budget planning for the Fortress Bible federal judgement against the town (estimated penalties to be at least $4,000,000 and probably not coverable by insurance)? Um, no.
Don't ask such questions.. don't question your taxes (unless you are an uncaring narcissist), vote for TS, feel fortunate that you have the privilege of living in Hartsdale, and move along, there is nothing to see here.
[* Mamaroneck announced an increase of 2.2%, btw - http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010220333; Yorktown announced 2% - http://yorktown.lohudblogs.com/ , so Greenburgh may still be #1!]
TS assigns the blame for these increases elsewhere: employee benefits/pensions and certiorai claims. In fact, TS asserts there would be no tax increase but for the temerity of unpatriotic taxpaying property owners (presumably business as well as residential) to whine that their taxes are too high and...for shame, to actually prevail in their claim for tax reductions against the town and.. get this, actually collect refunds! Public Enemy #1 singled out for public shaming are the Highpoint Apts (See http://pfeiner.blogspot.com/2010/10/should-town-reassess-properties-10.html ). [Note: the pejorative adjectives are my own, and not TS's]. TS of course does not address the validity of certiorai claims against the town, sending the message to the rest of us that (1) taxpayers should just accept the town's assessment of taxes on their property like meek lambs and pay up, and (2) it is selfish and damaging to the commonweal to seek a tax reduction (no matter how just) because that just dumps the burden for the budget on our neighbors. In his defense, TS is now frequently raising the idea of tax reassessment. This "testing of the winds" is furthered by an interview given by the Town Assessor to the Journal News this past week in support of reassessment. I may hazard to guess that TS and the Assessor would not now be suggesting reassessment if they felt it would actually lead to tax decreases for most homeowners. Instead, the goal is explicitly to forestall future certiorai claims. I also suspect that an unstated but desired benefit is that the reassessment will create a one-time freebie tax increase for the Board, without having to actually pass an increase on the record in the budget, when the reassessment takes effect increasing everyone's house values - but I may be completely wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about).
OK, we should blame our selfish neighbors and business owners who are costing us $5 million, but there are other miscreants: public sector employees! TS throws these individuals under a Bee-line bus, informing us: "pension costs have gone up by 36% for the Employee Retirement System (ERS) and 24% for the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS). (The Town has no control over these percentages.) This equates to a pension cost increase of $1.0 million. In addition, health care costs increased by 15%, which equates to an increase of $1.4 million." Notice the crucial parenthetical: "THE TOWN HAS NO CONTROL OVER THESE PERCENTAGES." This is the usual exonerating comment accompanying all announcements of tax increases by TS - "it's out of my control." Does this mean that TS never has control over ERS and PFRS, and these increases are mandated by the State? Perhaps, I just have no idea.
Is there room for cutting budget: of course there are! that is, if you are a heartless fiend who relishes eliminating town services for seniors and special needs children [Message received loud and clear: just shut up already, it's less $200 more dollars and if you dare to complain about your prop. taxes, you are a selfish, crudmudgeonly ogre!]
Is there any mention about the Town's $834,000 liability being paid out over 5 years arising from our workers comp insurance fiasco? Um, no. http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010110327
Is there any mention of budget planning for the Fortress Bible federal judgement against the town (estimated penalties to be at least $4,000,000 and probably not coverable by insurance)? Um, no.
Don't ask such questions.. don't question your taxes (unless you are an uncaring narcissist), vote for TS, feel fortunate that you have the privilege of living in Hartsdale, and move along, there is nothing to see here.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Cyrus
During our circuits around the neighborhood, everyone in Manor Woods smiled at Cyrus, apparently impressed by his regal bearing and charmed by his exuberant, sometimes overly-friendly, behavior. Although he had grown to almost eighty pounds, he was still a puppy, not yet eleven months old. We looked forward to his aging and mellowing as he grew into adult dog-hood, but we also relished his puppy curiosity and verve. We delighted in his playfulness, continuing to kick tennis balls or chase him around the kitchen at his insistence often late into the night. We marveled at his rapid development in intelligence and size, as he grew a luxurious, long cream colored coat that we could never resist stroking. From the day of his arrival, he ensnared our hearts with his inexhaustible affection, as he cuddled and nuzzled his family at every opportunity and rewarded each hug with a lick. We think we reciprocated by providing him with a loving home for eight treasured months. We miss him terribly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)