Greenburgh’s Confederate Monument honors reconciliation but its racial context should also be remembered

Amid the distressing news from Charlottesville and the ensuing call to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces across the South, Westchester residents were surprised to learn that Greenburgh had its own Confederate monument.  One hundred and twenty years ago, a Confederate veterans group in New York purchased plots for its members at the Mt. Hope Cemetery in unincorporated Greenburgh (Hastings-on-Hudson zip code) and crowned the spot with a sixty- foot granite obelisk.  Prompted by the renewed attention to the meaning and future of Confederate monuments, the Journal News carried a story last month about the Confederate monument that sparked a lively on-line debate.  While a few commentators demanded the monument’s removal because it memorialized an army that fought to preserve slavery, the opinions trended toward leaving the obelisk in place as a symbol of reconciliation and a tribute to the sacrifice of soldiers. In addition, the monument’s defenders pointed out that, unlike the Southern monuments slated for removal, the Mt. Hope obelisk stood on private cemetery property.

As public attention wandered to other matters, Hastings Mayor Peter Swiderski released a statement seconded by Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner describing the obelisk as a “monument to reconciliation.” Swiderski quoted Postmaster General Wilson (a Confederate veteran) who remarked at the 1897 dedication ceremony that “[t]he only rivalry in the future [between the former opponents] will be generous emulation in the performance of the duties of citizenship of a common country.”  Finally, Swiderski found validation for the monument in the honor granted by the Sons of Union Veterans chapters that continue to hold annual ceremonies at the plot.  Supervisor Feiner directed attention to the lesson that we can learn from those veterans who, in 1897, “decided to put aside their past differences and be friends.”

Swiderski and Feiner are correct in their recapitulation of the intent and spirit behind the monument.  The dedication was reported by newspapers across the nation, particularly in the South, as a symbol of reconciliation as veterans of blue and grey, more than three decades after Appomattox, joined together in mutual solemnity and dignity to honor former comrades and enemies alike.  Few objections were raised at the time. In fact, the May 1897 ceremony at Mt. Hope capped a series of vivid, public appearances in New York where Confederate veterans, wearing the old grey uniforms and carrying their banners, marched before cheering crowds, including the dedication of Grant’s Tomb and an event honoring Admiral Farragut.  The Confederate veterans drew such applause on New York streets that an observer might wonder who had actually won the war. Reconciliation had indeed reached its apex:  reconciliation, that is, among white Americans.

While white Americans celebrated national reconciliation in the 1890s at ceremonies like the Mt. Hope monument dedication, millions of formerly enslaved African Americans and their descendants experienced the war’s legacy differently. The Reconstruction era, when Southern blacks experienced dramatic advances in civil and political rights, was long in the past by 1897.  The multi-racial governments established in the former Confederate states in the aftermath of the Civil War, and which endorsed the rights of all citizens, collapsed in the 1870s as Confederate veterans adopted Klan and Regulator disguises and launched an insurrection. These white “redeemers” resorted to terror to suppress black voting, intimidate government officials, and exploit Northern war exhaustion to seize control of the former Confederate states and restore unquestioned white supremacy.  

The redeemers initially found themselves stymied by the constitutional legacy of the Union’s triumph in the Civil War: the XIII Amendment barring slavery, the XIV Amendment ensuring black citizenship, and the XV Amendment promoting voting rights.  Determined to retain power, Southern whites resorted to a web of legal and regulatory schemes imposed over two decades which nearly eliminated black voting, restricted blacks’ legal rights, and segregated public spaces and facilities. The result was the pervasive, oppressive system better known as “Jim Crow.” The legal system sanctioned this imposition of apartheid, culminating in the Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson decision in May 1896 – twelve months prior to the Mt. Hope monument dedication – affirming the validity of “separate but equal.”

Some Northerners did object as their purportedly vanquished Confederate foes deliberately undermined the freedom component of the war’s twin goals of “liberty and union.”  But while the Northern public abhorred slavery, it was divided on the status of African Americans.  Many – perhaps most – shared the prejudices of their white, reconciled Southern friends, and believed that blacks should be segregated and confined to an inferior status.  Few believed in black civil rights to the degree that they were willing to dissent from the spirit of reconciliation that prevailed in the 1890s.  Who wanted to spoil the reconciliation party by protesting the denial of civil rights to blacks including thousands of United States Colored Troops veterans?  It would take many more decades before photos of the disfigured corpse of Emmett Till and horrific televised images coming from Selma spurred white Americans to remember that African Americans were full citizens too. 

What does this history mean for Greenburgh’s Confederate obelisk?   Swiderski and others are indeed correct that the monument was funded, constructed, and inscribed in the spirit of national reconciliation. The dedication and later ceremonies at Mt. Hope echoed a national will to put division in the past and to honor brave young men from both sides who fought and died in the war.   And, as many have pointed out, the monument does stand on private ground (although that land benefits from its tax exemption and the obelisk looms over a major intersection).  Now that public awareness has been raised that the Mt. Hope obelisk honors Confederate soldiers who fought to fracture our nation in pursuit of the defense of slavery, the obelisk should remain in place to remind us of the fragility of our liberty and the threat from those who seek its destruction.  When we drive by the monument near the corner of Saw Mill River Road and Jackson Avenue, we should remember too that the spirit of reconciliation exemplified by the Mt. Hope obelisk helped salve the nation’s wounds but also paved the path for the entrenchment of white supremacy and the oppression of African Americans for generations.

In case you were wondering: Greenburgh has its very own Confederate Monument

OK, it's an unobtrusive (though large) obelisk, not a statue of a Confederate general or generic soldier.  And it's in a cemetery - Mt. Hope in unincorporated Greenburgh to be precise - unmistakable from Saw Mill River Road and Jackson Ave., once you know what to look for.  But it's not a grave for a particular individual: it is indeed a Confederate monument.  To learn more, read further below:



As a Civil War buff and occasional author, I was amazed to learn a few years ago that there is a large Confederate monument only a ten-minute drive from my house in Hartsdale.  The granite obelisk in the picture above is quite large, maybe 50 feet tall (one newspaper says 60 feet on top of a 10-foot base), and stands in the Mount Hope Cemetery located in unincorporated Greenburgh, close to Hastings.  It is quite prominent - by far the largest and tallest monument in the hillside cemetery and plainly visible from Saw Mill River Road below and the downward slope of Jackson Ave.  On closer inspection, it appears impressive, very well maintained and is circled by the well-preserved graves of Confederate veterans, most with army units identified  Interestingly, on my visit, the graves were each flanked by a small United States flag.  

The monument was erected in 1897 in the midst of the "lost cause" romanticism about the Confederacy that took hold of the nation's memory of the Civil War at the same time that Jim Crow apartheid laws were being imposed across the South.  Plessy v. Ferguson, sanctioning racially separate but equal public facilities (they were never equal), had been decided by the Supreme Court the year before. 

The obelisk reads on one side: "Sacred to the Memory of the Heroic Dead of the Confederate Veterans Camp of New York."  Purportedly, this is the only such Confederate monument and dedicated cemetery section north of the Mason-Dixon line, excluding, I suppose, the prison camp cemeteries. There is a research opportunity to examine the story behind this monument, its dedication (that drew some opposition from local Union army veterans, but not much), the individuals buried around it (Confederate veterans who had moved to New York after the Civil War) and its preservation.

Whether a prominent monument honoring soldiers who fought for a rebellious nation founded to preserve the supposed right to keep other humans in brutal slavery - precipitating a war that killed almost 700,000 Americans - should still stand in our area is another question entirely.  

Greenburgh Tax-a-derby!

Get your Greenburgh Tax Rates here! All in one place! Compare.. compare... The following chart (sorry about the size, i'm not great with html), compiles 2016 tax rates for Greenburgh town (village and TOV rates), county, schools and fire districts. It does not include sewer districts and other small add-ons. Nor do these rates reflect STAR or similar Veterans deductions, or homestead rates for condos. Just the raw rates (pre-reassessment) found at http://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates . Who are the Greenburgh tax winners and losers? In the villages, the lowest tax rate goes to Elmsford villagers who live in the Greeenburgh Central school district. And in unincorporated, the lowest rates, by a wide margin, belong to those lucky householders in the Pocantico Hills school district with N. Elmsford Fire Protection Distrct. And the highest taxes? In the villages that honor goes to Irvington villager residing in the Dobbs Ferry School District (go figure!). But the distinction for the higest tax rates in Greenburgh (possibly the world), goes to ....drumroll.. the fortunate unincorporated denizens of the Ardsley School District and the Hartsdale Fire District. Congrats guys!

Hartsdale School District Part II: Decline and Fall

Practically everyone in Hartsdale has heard that the community once had its own school district.  The facts about its demise and disappearance, however, are blurred by the mists of time. Misinformation and misunderstanding prevail. This essay and timeline are my attempt to provide accurate information and to relay the outline of a dramatic and troubling narrative.

Before the enormous population growth of the 1950s, the enrollment in Greenburgh’s many school districts was tiny.  Edgemont (Greenville or #5) and Hartsdale (#7) were too small to support high schools and instead made arrangements with neighboring school districts to “tuition in” their high school age students. Greenburgh #8 periodically retained its high school classes, but its small class sizes (1939 senior class had 31 students) made maintaining a high school financially impractical and the district returned to the practice of dispatching its high schoolers to White Plains. 

[NOTE:   I'VE BEEN CORRECTED THAT PRE-MERGER GREENBURGH #8 (G8) WAS NEVER REFERRED TO AS THE FAIRIVEW SCHOOLS BY ITS STUDENTS OR FAMILIES. I'VE UPDATED THIS POST ACCORDINGLY] 

Starting at least in the 1920s, the Greenburgh school district boards discussed various merger configurations with the goal of creating a critical mass of population able to support construction of high schools.  Districts like Edgemont, Hartsdale and Greenburgh #8 however, stalled and stumbled along for decades until the dilemma reached a crisis level with a series of unrelated but ultimately intertwined events in the mid-1950s: 1. rapid post-war development and population growth prompted Scarsdale and White Plains school districts, which had previously served as regional high schools for adjoining districts, to announce that they would soon be curtailing or stopping altogether acceptance of out of district students; 2. New York State’s Education Department (SED) under its new active, progressive Commissioner James E. Allen promulgated the “Master Plan” promoting consolidation of school districts state-wide to encourage establishment of large high schools able to support diverse and modern programs; 3. the Warburg family donated 150 acres of largely open estate land to Greenburgh #8  for education purposes capturing the imagination of the SED which envisioned a regional educational campus; and 4. passage of Federal fair housing, urban renewal, and public housing subsidy legislation spurred Greenburgh to announce an ambitious Fairview redevelopment and public housing plan which inadvertently alerted new homeowners to the reality of racial and class diversity in the midst of their American Dream, suburban fantasy. 

Contrary to economic sense and educational policy, these factors tended to reinforce most Greenburgh communities’ natural instinct to resist school district mergers.  Local Boards of Education and SED officials may have championed the benefits of district consolidation, but Greenburgh voters manage to frustrate nearly every such proposal.  The official objections typically cited district funding and debt discrepancies, but these rationalizations often thinly disguised underlying class and race prejudices.   

  

Hartsdale was the sole Greenburgh school district to fail to escape the Master Plan and end up merged out of existence. Hartsdale's fate, however, was not a foregone conclusion. The demise of the Hartsdale School District is a story of obtuseness, missed opportunities, self-defeating behavior, spite, and bigotry that is painful to read.  Following is a brief sketch of the events that led to the downfall of this school district. The legacy of the merger nearly fifty years ago is profoundly felt in both Hartsdale and the Greenburgh Central school district today.

[Italics are my editorial comments]

1929: Hartsdale School District special school committee studies a proposal to form a joint school district with Greenville (herein “Edgemont”) to solve the high school problem  [NY Herald Tribune 10/13/1929]  [*the extent of flirtation between Edgemont and Hartsdale is the first surprise: there were many real opportunities for the two districts to merge]

1946: Edgemont Civic Assoc. recommends exploring building joint high school with Hartsdale [Edgemont Echo 5/3/46]

1948: On-going discussions of merging Irvington, Tarrytown, N. Tarrytown, Pocantico Hills and Elmsford school districts [*the Rockefellers played a role in encouraging this merger]

1950:  Greenburgh Town Council enacts amendment to Building Zone Ordinance to prohibit erection of houses under 20,000 cubic feet in Edgemont [Irvington Gazette, Dec. 1, 1965] [*a sign that Edgemont is treated differently as a more upscale enclave];   Tarrytown votes to merge with Irvington schools but blocked by rejection by Irvington voters [Irvington Gazette 2/2/50] 

1951: Spring:  Greenburgh #8 Superintendent Richard J. Bailey devises desegregation “Princeton Plan,” endorsed by Civic Associations (but not put to popular referendum), assigning (and busing) all grades 1-3 students to one building, grades 4-6 to another, and 7-10 in the district’s third building; implemented in ’51-’52 school year for #8's 600 student enrollment [Yonkers Herald Statesman, 11/27/56].

1952:  Scarsdale announces it will stop accepting Edgemont high schoolers effective at the end of the ’52-’53 school year because of rising enrollment in Scarsdale;

Edgemont Board of Ed votes to send 11^th and 12^th graders to Bronxville High School for ’53-’54 & ’54-’55. [Bronxville Reporters, Jan. 8 & 10, 1952].  Some Edgemont residents look to consolidation with Hartsdale as a solution. Hartsdale sends its 10-12 graders to White Plains HS.

Ardsley and Dobbs Ferry voters reject their respective BOE’s merger proposal [Irvington Gazette, Jan. 31, 1952]

With federal and state funding available, Town debates urban renewal (“slum clearance”) in flood prone Fairview and the consequent need for public housing; apprehension over planned extension of state thruway from Elmsford to Rye (through Fairview and Fulton Park) [Edgemont and Fairview co-exist in unincorporated Greenburgh but could just as well be located on different planets]

1953: creation of Greenburgh Housing Authority by vote of Town Council and state legislature

February: Hartsdale-Edgemont Educational Advisory Committee recommends to Boards of Ed of Edgemont (#6) and Hartsdale (#7) to consolidate school systems and build jr/sr high school [Yonkers Herald Statesman, 2/5/53]

***April 27, 1953:  Merger vote: Edgemont school district votes 607-399 (60%) against; Hartsdale school district votes 495-283 (64%) against: “The announced purpose of the consolidation was construction of a $3,000,000 joint junior-senior high school.”  [NY Times; 4/29/53] [the first cut is the deepest]

December:  Edgemont school district voters approve bond to finance building new high school [that didn't take long]

1954: February: Edgemont Community Council studies incorporating Edgemont as a village. [Bronxville Review Press Reporter, 2/18/54] 

GHA releases major plan for “slum clearance” in Manhattan Park-Fairgrounds area of Fairview, together with building public housing.

Rapid growth: Greenburgh registered voters increase from 21,546 (1950) to 30,697 (1954) in just four years (more than doubling in Ardsley and Fairview)

1955:  Hartsdale school district opens Highview School

***Frieda Schiff Warburg bequests 150 acres to Greenburgh #8 School District [according to legend #8 asked for 5 acres and got 150+ instead]

1957-58:  Study of possible merger of Hartdale (#7) and Greenburgh (#8) requested by both boards: both districts currently sending high schoolers to White Plains HS; White Plains has given  notice that it will no longer accept out-of-district jr high school grads starting in 1960 [in the early 60s, White Plains would still accept Hartsdale junior high students at its Battle Hill school]

February:  Greenburgh #8 issues bonds to finance building of high school on Warburg campus

September:  NY State Education Department, Commissioner James E. Allen issues “Master Plan.”   Calls for high schools with at least 700 students in grades 10-12.  Master Plan proposes mergers for all Greenburgh schools in various configurations: (Edgemont with Scarsdale and Mamaroneck; Dobbs Ferry, Hastings and Ardsley; Hartsdale, G8 and Elmsford; Tarrytown, Irvington, Pocantico Hills and Mount Pleasant.

October: Greenburgh Urban Renewal plan proposes "renewal" of 175 acres with population of 2,500 (80%+ African American) in Fairview's Manhattan Park; 425 families to be displaced; to build 130 state aided public housing and 300 units of medium income housing; 225 homes to be demolished or rebuilt.

1959

February:  Edgemont votes 929-351 to discontinue study of proposed merger with Hartsdale school district that had been recommended by consultants

September:  Greenburgh #8 dedicates Juniper Hill School on Warburg campus.

November: Hartsdale debates building its own high school.

1960
Construction on Cross Westchester Expressway, bisecting Fairview;

GHA breaks ground on 130 state funded public housing units at Hyer Farm (off Old Tarrytown Road)

1961

Greenburgh #8 opens Junior/Senior High School on Warburg campus designed for 1,300 students capacity

1962

February: Urban Renewal: 300 properties to be acquired; 570 families to be relocated to make way for 320 co-op and rental apts for middle-income families, but only 450 housing units planned (planners estimate that 25%  of families will move out of urban renewal area)  [Irvington Gazette, 2/1/62]

March: Hartsdale BOE votes in favor of merger with Greenburgh #8.

October: dedication of Old Tarrytown Road state-funded 131 unit housing project

1963

Revived discussion of Hartsdale #7, Greenburgh #8, Elmsford #9 school district consolidation (“7/8/9” plan per SED Master Agreement). Warburg campus eyed as site of joint school [Yonkers Herald Statesmen, 3/28/63]

April:  Battle over 7/8/9 consolidation: SED strongly in favor.  Each districts’ voters must approve, but only Hartsdale (7) BOE endorses. Elmsford (9) BOE votes against 4:1, and G8 opposes 4-2.  [NY Times 4/14/63].  Small plurality of  Hartsdale voters in favor, while Elmsford and District #8 voters oppose the 7/8/9 merger.

’63-’64 School Year

Hartsdale students are enrolled in four different school systems:  

8^th & 9^th graders: 93 enrolled in Hartsdale JH, and 19 in White Plains’ Battle Hill school.  

10^th graders: 37 at Ardsley, 1 at Woodlands (given school choice, almost all 10^th graders select Ardsley over Woodlands)

11^th grade: 15 at Ardsley (switched from Woodlands) with 33 staying at Woodlands.

Talk in Albany of Ardsley/Hartsdale merger.  Hartsdale BOE pushes for exploration of Hartsdale/Ardsley/G8 merger.

Elmsford BOE President makes clear his district's opposition to any merger.   G8 BOE president suggests that race is factor in all-white Hartsdale courting all-white Ardsley for merger and insists that integration should be included as a factor [Masterson Press, 6/13/63; 7/4/63]

Competing plans in Hartsdale: signing 5 year contract with White Plains to send 8-9 graders to Battle Hill JH and 10-12 grades White Plains HS or to keep 8-9 grades in Hartsdale and give 10-12 graders a choice between Ardsley and Woodlands.  It is suggested that White Plains wants Hartsdale's white students in order to preserve racial balance at the Battle Hill School as White Plains implements a desegregation/racial balance plan for its schools.

CBS News broadcasts Mike Wallace segment on Woodlands as model of “successful

integration.”

Summer: exploratory conversations over Ardsley, Hartdale, G8 merger.

November: SED willing to deviate from Master Plan and consider Hartsdale/G8 merger without Elmsford, but by this time, growing interest in Hartsdale look toward merging with Ardsley instead of G8.  Belief that many in Ardsley prefer merger with Hartsdale over Master Plan’s proposed Ardsley/Hastings/Dobbs Ferry merger.  Plans for Ardsley/Hartsdale merger tempered by perception that SED Commissioner Allen won’t approve merger of two “all white” school districts.

December: petitions circulating in G8 and Hartsdale calling for two-way merger

Revived talks of merger of Irvington, Tarrytown, N. Tarrytown, Elmsford, and Pocantico Hills

1964

January: Hartsdale/G8 merger negotiations find main difference in Hartsdale’s proposal to drop Princeton Plan.

February:  Hartsdale and G8 BOEs vote in favor of merger, public referendum scheduled (requires approval of both districts)

March 16: G8 votes 1835-135 (93%) in favor; Hartsdale kills the merger by voting 573-1032 against (only 36% in favor); 

April:  Ardsley BOE votes 4-3 not to accept additional Hartsdale students: current students can finish high school.

May: Hartsdale BOE votes for 2 year contract to send 8-12 graders to Woodlands; with Ardsley BOE vote and White Plains not accepting additional Hartsdale students, Hartsdale-G8 merger starts to look inevitable

1965
May: Hartsdale votes to designate Ardsley and Woodlands as receiving high schools, despite Ardsley’s previous and continuing refusal to accept additional Hartsdale students.

July: release of Bucheimer's Anti Defamation League-sponsored study touting benefits of integration in G8 schools.

September: Dobbs Ferry and Hastings BOEs vote in favor of three-way merger with Ardsley. Ardsley continues to resist.

1966:

Jan: SED indicates it will approve Hartsdale/G8 only merger

April: Hastings and Dobbs Ferry voters turn down two-way merger proposal.

New York Times: “Hartsdale in Ferment” article discusses racism and anti-Semitism in Hartsdale exposed by dissension over school merger with G8.  According to article, Jews in Hartsdale are perceived and resented as leading pro-integration & pro-merger movement [NY Times 4/15/66]

Hartsdale: 850 students and only 1 African American; G8: 2,750 students, 36% black [NY Times 4/21/66]

Hartsdale votes 818 – 486 to direct BOE to petition SED Comm. Allen to hold a public hearing on Ardsley, Edgemont, Hartsdale merger that is proposed only by Hartsdale.

New York Amsterdam News article denounces “Jim Crow in Hartsdale, N.Y.” [NY Amsterdam News, 4/30/66]

June: Hartsdale voters once again choose Ardsley as high school (rejecting Woodlands and White Plains) despite Ardsley’s continuing refusal to accept additional Hartsdale students; Hartsdale BOE expanded from 5 to 7 members as anti-merger activists take control of BOE. After Ardsley rejection, SED intervenes to designate Woodlands as high school for Hartsdale students. 138 Hartsdale students attend Woodlands in ’65-’66 school year.

Ardsley BOE announces it will oppose any Ardsley/Edgemont/Hartsdale (5/6/7) merger proposal

September: SED holds hearing in Albany over Hartsdale proposal to replace 7/8 merger with 5/6/7 merger;  Edgemont, Ardsley, NYCLU, Urban League, American Jewish Committee, and Westchester Catholic Council all appear at hearing to oppose the Hartsdale petition;  some Hartsdale residents also appear in order to argue in favor of 7/8 merger.

Hartsdale anti-merger activists file case in NY state court to “erase” the SED hearing and declare Comm. Allen’s proposed 7/8 merger illegal.

October: Greenburgh Housing Authority presents proposed public housing scatter sites for unincorporated Greenburgh (villages are exempt). Greenburgh #8 and Hartsdale BOE presidents object to GHA proposal to place 50 more public housing units in Fairview, urging that Greenburgh #8 already had sufficient public housing and additional units should be placed in other unincoporated school districts; once again, no public housing units are proposed for Edgemont

November:  Edgemont files petitions for incorporation as village:  “Discontent has been expressed widely in Edgemont about the zoning developments of Central Avenue, and the report also is that residents fear urban renewal housing relocations – meaning Negro residents from low to medium income strata   - in Edgemont if the community remains under the Unincorporated Area jurisdiction. There is considerable consternation in the remainder of the Unincorporated Area – Hartsdale, Fairview and other communities – about what would happen to present facilities and regulations such as zoning if the entire Edgemont area pulled out.” [Masterson Press 12/23/66]

Fairview elects William H. Sudderth Jr. as first African American member of Board of Fire Commissioners.

1967

January:  Local press reports in “Hartsdale’s Desperate Hours” that Hartsdale BOE Pres. Fishman admitted that the push for 5/6/7 plan was a “delaying tactic” to thwart a 7/8 merger.  Hartsdale BOE now proposing building a high school for its 368 high school students. [Hastings News, 1/12/67]

Edgemont incorporation vote fails by wide margin.

March: Hartsdale BOE continues to explore building high school while also voting to designate Woodlands as high school for ’67-’68.  Ardsley votes to buy land for middles school, while Edgemont prepares to vote on additions to high school.

SED Comm. Allen officially rejects Hartdale plea for 5/6/7 merger, leaving 7/8 merger as only pathway forward.  “Many consider the real basis for the opposition in Hartsdale to District 8 schools is fear of merging with a racially integrated school district. Hartsdale schools are virtually all white.” [Dobbs Ferry Sentinel 3/23/67]

Federal Housing Authority rejects GHA proposed scatter sites (except for 30 senior units in Fairview) on basis of “minority group concentration” in Greenburgh #8, and reduces units allocated for Pocantico Hills School District from 50 to 25 for the same reason.

April:  Comm. Allen writes that he will not approve Hartsdale plans to build a high school because of its small enrollment (fewer than 400 high school students) and instead encourages merger.

Irvington School District rejects applications from Hartsdale families who seek to send their children to its high school.

Hartsdale BOE offers to accept some low income housing units in Hartsdale (and is accused of "tokenism.") [Hastings News 4/13/67]

May:  Hartsdale BOE designates Woodlands as high school for ’67-’68 but also gives parents right to send 10-12^th graders to any Westchester County high school with Hartsdale paying the out-of-district tuition (up to the amount that would have been paid to Woodlands).

Hartsdale appeals to NY Board of Regents to reject SED Comm. Allen’s decision and instead to substitute 5/6/7 merger for 7/8.

July:  “Hartsdale Committee for a 7/8 Merger” (led by Renee Hertz and Daniel Nadler) sends petitions to SED to trigger merger vote in districts #7 and #8 within thirty days. The referendum will combined the districts and not require each district's separate approval [this reconfiguration of the district approval requirement virtually guarantees  merger]

Upon learning of petitions, Hartsdale BOE votes to appeal to NY Supreme Court the SED ruling that 7/8 merger is most educationally sound and economical solution.

Board of Regents rejects Hartsdale BOE appeal of Comm. Allen’s rulings.  Hartsdale BOE votes both to appeal Regents’ ruling (asking for stay of vote while ruling is pending) and to begin planning merger with #8 BOE.

Hartsdale BOE withdraws restraining order and injunction against holding merger vote.

GHA presents 6 scatter sites for public housing in unincorporated (excluding Edgemont).

August
8/5:  Merger vote:  Hartsdale BOE declares Hartsdale boycott of vote and attempts to block voting at Webb School. Districts combined result in 2681 in favor and 356 against.

September:  unified 7/8 school districts elect unity nine member BOE with 6 candidates from G8 and 3 from Hartsdale (opposition slate against Princeton Plan fails to gain support), but only to take office on 7/1/68.  A legal challenge to the merger vote is rejected by Appellate Division.

GHA President Davis Zimmerman resigns after 15 years leading public housing effort.

Dobbs Ferry and Hastings BOEs meet again to discuss “inevitable and necessary” merger

Hartsdale’s anti-merger BOE elects new members.  Anti-merger legal actions still pending.: .\(1) proceeding b/f Comm. Allen to overturn Aug. 5 vote b/c of alleged irregularities (dismissed by Comm. Allen in December), (2) declaratory judgement action by Hartsdale BOE to invalidate merger filed on 8/21 at Supreme Court, Albany (rejected by judge in December), and (3) Article 78 proceeding appealing Regents decision to the Appellate Div. in Albany (rejected by Appel. Div. in September).  Hartsdale BOE continues to study building a Hartsdale high school with an architect's report expected by end of Sept. or Oct.  Cost of study $6,500.

Construction set to begin on 180 unit middle-income high rises in Fairview.

1968
March: New York Amsterdam News observes that the post-merger school district is 75% white and 25% black.  The newspaper reports on racial tensions and fights between black and white students at Woodlands High School. Black students are asking for “more black history, more inclusion in school activities such as campus newspaper.” [NY Amsterdam News 3/30/68]

April: Ardsley-Forest Civic Association organizes to resist placement of fifteen-unit public housing development planned for Secor Road

MLK assassination has profound impact on town and Greenburgh Central students.

Yonkers newspaper comments that the Fairview/Hartsdale schools have a “nationwide reputation for successful integration” but neighborhoods are segregated. [Yonkers Herald Statesman, 4/24/68]

May:  Hartsdale BOE holds annual meeting, adopts budget and elects the board, despite stay issued by SED Commissioner’s office.

Spring: increasing civic engagement town-wide, including anti-poverty programs bringing village residents and youth from white neighborhoods to Fairview

June: Supervisor Nick Russo creates the Greenburgh Human Relations Committee

July: Hartsdale BOE holds final meeting, signing over capital reserve fund, despite opposition from board members, ending the story of the Hartsdale School District

Greenburgh #7 (merged districts assumes the #7 designation), later renamed Greenburgh Central 

Enrollment (K-12):
1967-1968: 3,803  [’68-’69 (proj.) 3,918. Bronx Reporter, 8/29/68]

1977-1978: 3,254
1987-1988: 1,915
1997-1998: 1,965
2007-2008: 1,654
2015-2016: 1,757   Source: https://data.nysed.gov

EDGEMONT INCORPORATION IS HEADING TO A REFERENDUM: CAN IT BE DEFEATED?

To the chagrin of 35,000 residents of unincorporated Greenburgh who live outside the refined confines of Edgemont, the incorporation train is leaving the station, loading coal, picking up steam, and chugging down the line (how far can we stretch this metaphor?).  Non-Edgie TOVers are tied to the tracks like Nell Fenwick, holding out hope that  Dudley Do Right will appear at the last second, cut the ropes, and save TOV.  The chances for averting incorporation lie in (1) some miracle legal theory that will taser incorporation (doubtful) or (2) defeat of the forthcoming referendum at the polls. This blog post explores the later of the two as a plausibly viable outcome (straw grasping is a sport).

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXERCISE IN CREATIVE ACCOUNTING CONSISTS OF BASELESS NUMBERS MASQUERADING AS STATISTICS.  TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY AT YOUR OWN RISK - ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO CITE MANORWOODS BLOG IN NEWSPAPERS WITHOUT PROVIDING A LINK OR MY NAME] 

Now that the petitions have been successfully file, incorporation is heading to a referendum, most likely early this summer.   The question haunting TOV is guessing how many “no” votes will be needed to kill incorporation, thereby saving the TOV, the town, the Republic and truth and justice. 

The first order of business is to guess how many Edgies will be vote in a short notice referendum.    Our best starting point to guesstimate how many will turn out in favor of incorporation are the incorporation petitions which presented the names of 1,455 registered voters.     

Now come the unfounded assumptions:

Assumption #1:  90% of the 1,455 actually understood what they were signing and support incorporation:   #1 reduces potential "yes" voters to 1,310.

Assumption #2:  The petition signers are motivated and will vote in the referendum in the same ratio as Edgemont registered voters did in the recent presidential election at 80%: #2 reduces the petition voters to 1048.

Assumption #3:   Publicity and debate attracts more attention and adds another 10% to the voter total, resulting in 1,153 votes in favor of incorporation.

So my estimate is 1,153 in favor votes – hold it against me later.  Any Nate Silvers here have a better plan?

Back to our original question:  can incorporation be defeated in a referendum?  If we go with the 1,153 votes in favor prediction, then opponents will need to summon 1,154 voters (remember that it’s an up or down vote).  To reach this total will require a voter turn-out of over 2,300.  The premise of the rest of this essay is that a turnout of over 2,300 make defeat of the incorporation referendum plausible.

Are 1,154 “no” votes possible to attain?  Let’s look at historic turn-out.  In a non-presidential election, the largest Edgemont turnout we’ve seen in recent years came in November 2010 which featured Andrew Cuomo’s first bid for governor and a re-election run for US Senate by Chuck Schumer.  That election brought out 2,449 Edgemont voters, about half of the active registered voter total.  This turnout exceeds our 2,300 threshold and suggests that it is possible for Edgemont voting numbers to reach totals where incorporation could be defeated. Admittedly, however, November turn outs in Edgemont in other off-year elections have usually been closer to 1,400 than 2,300.  

But are November general elections even a good comparison? Probably not because active registered voters are accustomed to turning up election day and easier to mobilize. A better model is a non-November general election or referendum.  For Edgemont, the best examples are probably school budget elections, which can sometimes attract great attention. In the past several years, school budget vote turn out in Edgemont has generally been around 600, peaking at just over 700 back in 2011.  If we go further back, however, we will a budget vote where an astounding 2,316 voters came out on June 16 (!), 2005.  This was a re-vote after a previous negative vote in May (when the vote total was 1077).  Clearly, Edgemont residents were highly motivated and energized for that budget vote. Most significantly for our purposes, the 2005 school budget vote shows that it is possible to mobilize Edgemont voters to turn out in numbers in an off-month referendum whereby defeat of the incorporation referendum is conceivable.

Summary: EIC’s 1,455 ballot signers look like an imposing total should incorporation supporters turn out for the referendum in expected numbers. I estimate that for there to be any chance to defeat incorporation, overall Edgemont turn-out will have to clear 2,300.  To find a non-general election date where numbers turn-out number reach that threshold, we have to go back to the highly charged 2005 second school budget vote.  In conclusion, it is plausible that in a highly charged atmosphere, referendum turn-out numbers could be reached where incorporation could be defeated.  But is this possibility likely or even realistic?  What do you think?