GREENBURGH TOWN ACTIVE COVID CASES: SECOND WAVE

 Town active cases on Dec. 4th hit 490 total, setting a new daily high for active cases for the Town since  the county started distributing such data on May 5.  

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE CASES: CROSSING INTO THE 300s

 Greenburgh active COVID cases continue to rise, although at a slower pace (26% in seven days ending today, compared to 54% in the 7 day period ending 11/20).   At 303, total active cases are the highest level since May 6, the day after Westchester started providing active case data by locality.

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE CASES: The multiplier effect takes over

Active townwide cases double from 11/9 (112) up to 225 today.  For context, town was at 36 total active cases on 9/30.  Current number is the highest since May 6:

The rise in October & November:

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES: NUMBERS RAPIDLY INCREASING

With 134 active COVID cases reported by the county, Greenburgh is at its highest active case level since May 18.  Numbers have increased nearly 80% (from 75 to 134) from Nov. 4 to Nov. 10.  The townwide low point of 25 cases was reached on August 25.  

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES: MAY 5 - NOV. 6: REACHIING A NEW POST-MAY HIGH

After stabilizing in the 70s, townwide cases jumped to 86 on Friday.

 

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES: SETTLING IN THE 70's

 After a dramatic leap into the 80's range last week, Greenburgh COVID active cases have settled back down in the 70's this week.  Village numbers are jumping around, but TOV cases are slowly dropping.  

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES: HIGHEST RATES SINICE MID-MAY

 

COVID active cases in unincorporated Greenburgh continue to rise and have reached the highest number since May 18, shortly after the County started regular reports of active cases.   The villages, on the other hand, have remained stable at 37 the week since reaching a recent peak of 45 on October 13.  The townwide total of 85 is the highest since May 22.  

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES MAY 5- OCT. 16: Back to the 60s

 After my ill-timed observation last week that Greenburgh COVID cases had remained consistent since late June, active cases took an upward jump this past week.  With 28 active cases, TOV is at its highest point since August 17 (when, after reaching 32 cases on August 13, TOV experienced a brief mini-wave).   The villages numbers pushed up into the 40s for the first time since June 23, which shows a slow steady increase in falling to a nadir of 5 active cases in the villages on August 20.   Still, as the chart shows, in broader context we're definitely not in second wave territory. 

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES MAY 5- OCTOBER 9

Small dips and bumps, but consistent since mid-June.  As this rate of infection has persisted for almost four months, are we prepared to live with this rate indefinitely? At what point do  policy makers (county, town, villages, schools) determine what infection rate constitutes an acceptable level of risk?  The county won't give us townwide fatality numbers (and the Town of Greenburgh seems remarkably incurious or secretive) so we don't know about Greenburgh death numbers.  County-wide, there have been 5 COVID deaths in October after 4 in all of September (Source: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/new-york/county/westchester-county?fbclid=IwAR28mFjtlDfOxGM1Aas-oa4IIfetiUl92gsjq-0I2hB5DYfApihkpG9R_AY)

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES MAY 5 - SEPT. 25: BACK TO THE '50s

 

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES MAY 5 - SEPT 18: A SLIGHT UPWARD CREEP

As of Sept 18, with 52 cases townwide, we're seeing the highest active COVID cases numbers since July 17th.  Most of the increase comes from the incorporated villages which have moved up from a low of 5 cases on Aug 20th to 28 currently.  Still the numbers haven't reached the level of the mini-secondary wave back in mid-June when townwide numbers reached 68 (June 11th and 12th) after having tumbled down to 44 (June 4) following the county's clearing out its active case data backlog in mid-May.  

Despite this increase, which parallels a county-wide trend, Westchester County has reported only two COVID deaths in September after seven in August.  https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/state/new-york/county/westchester-county?fbclid=IwAR2-QZ_ngFzU2zhFQfTRgvul1mdK65YlRAv5UOy9DEUr83I2wRcPMLRAGcA

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES MAY 5 - SEPTEMBER 10

 

After townwide nadir of 25 active cases on August 5, there has been a slight upturn back to 40 (Sept. 8) and the town total has hovered in the high 30s since.    TOVs low point was 11 cases on June 24, and has wandered between 32 cases (August 13) down to 15 (Aug. 25-27)  until reaching the low 20s again this week.  Much of the Villages increase (from a low of 5 cases on August 20 up to 18 currently) is driven by a cluster of 10 recent cases in Tarrytown and a few more in the other Rivertowns. 

Still no death numbers from the County for Greenburgh.   

Greenburgh (Town) Active COVID Cases - May 5 to Sept. 3

 

Town of Greenburgh Active COVID cases: May 5 - August 27

 

Source: Westchester County periodic updates.  

GREENBURGH (TOWN) ACTIVE COVID CASES MAY 5 - AUGUST 19

All the active COVID cases in the Town of Greenburgh charted daily since May 5, 2020 as reported by Westchester County. 

TOV:  Unincorporated Greenburgh

Villages:  Ardsley, Elmsford, Tarrytown, Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings

GREENBUGH COVID CASES SINCE MAY 5 - TOTAL AND DAILY ACTIVE CASES

TOTAL DIAGNOSED COVID CASES IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH FROM MAY 5 THROUGH AUGUST 11, 2020

CONFIRMED ACTIVE CASES, DAILY, IN TOWN OF GREENBURGH MAY 5 - AUGUST, 2020

SOURCE: Westchester County 

Greenburgh’s Very Complicated Confederate Monument – One Last Time

The Mt. Hope Cemetery Confederate Monument is uniquely complex and defies easy answers about what should or should not be done to address its existence in our community.  I do not offer solutions but only unease at our readiness to agree that the monument should continue to be ignored and left alone as in the past.  

Three years ago, I called attention to the Confederate Monument that stands sixty feet tall near the south west corner of the Mt. Hope Cemetery, close to the intersection of Jackson Ave and Saw Mill River Road.  At the time, I did not call for a specific remedy, only discussion.  

Town Supervisor Paul Feiner proposed the possibility of the monument’s removal but quickly withdrew that idea when then Hastings Mayor Peter Swiderski objected.  Swiderski argued that the monument represented reconciliation and should remain undisturbed.  Mt. Hope Cemetery also objected to any change in the monument’s status.  At the same time, Paul Feiner received an apparently serious threat on his life related to his removal proposal.  Although I questioned the reconciliationist framing of the monument, any attention given to the monument and its fate quickly faded. 

Now, as Confederate monuments across the South are falling or facing imminent removal, Greenburgh may soon find itself, ironically, as host to one of the largest Confederate monuments left standing.  

Beyond Feiner’s initial tentative, and quickly withdrawn, proposal three years ago, there has been zero public call for the monument’s removal. There are no demonstrations or protests or petitions challenging the monument like we are seeing in Southern states.  To the contrary, consensus suggests that the obelisk should simply be left alone.  

The argument for allowing the monument to return to obscurity is articulated eloquently by Michael Bennett who has led several local history groups and is a Civil War expert and a friend (slightly edited for length): 

Statues of Confederate leaders should never have been erected in public spaces. As honorable as someone might believe the individuals to be, they committed treason against the United States. It’s really that simple. Some may say they had a right to secede. We can discuss that if it matters. But with a right or not, they formed an army to fight against the US. You don’t even have to bring up slavery. They started a war, lost it, were forgiven, and were then welcomed back into the fold. And the country went on. The history of what took place should be remembered and taught and studied. No one should have erected monuments to them.

The monuments to Confederate military leaders were erected, quite inappropriately in town squares and at city halls, in large part long after the war ended, and specifically as part of an effort to re-write history and glorify an imagined lost-cause of “heritage and honor.” That’s not what the war was about. It MAY certainly be what the service of some poor boy from Alabama was about. But that’s not why his state voted to secede and draw arms against the United States.

And we, those of us - or our forefathers - who watched those statues go up and who don’t share that view of history let them do it. Taking down those statues now is merely righting a wrong that should never have been committed.

(I’m not speaking of statues and monuments and markers at historic battlefields. That story, and the story of those who were there, is appropriate to tell.)

But I also believe that a memorial marker placed at the final resting place of confederate veterans, by those veterans, especially a marker with a particularly remorseful and conciliatory message engraved, is a very different matter than a monument glorifying the lost cause (of treason for the purpose of perpetuating the institution of slavery) placed in front of a southern park or school or courthouse.

These men weren’t glorifying their cause or expressing their belief that they should still have slaves. The were honoring their friends who they shared a unique bond with, and mourning the loss of so many of their southern brethren so many years before. These were men who survived the war, moved north - to NY of all places - were loyal citizens of the country again, contributed to its development, and left behind generations of descendants who would do the same. If they wanted to note their participation in the Confederate Army on the monument at their gravesite, I’m ok with it.. It isn’t glorifying them or their cause to identify them (or allow them to identify themselves) at their graves.

But put that monument downtown or on the local college campus and it sends an entirely different message, and my opinion changes dramatically.

On Facebook on June 29, 2020, Greenburgh’s Human Rights Advisory Council posted the following in response to my inquiry about their position on the Greenburgh Confederate Monument (my question came in response to the GHRAC’s endorsing the removal of the Columbus relief statue in Tarrytown). 

Like so many Americans who are actively opposing the countless manifestations of racism in the U.S., we abhor the celebration and romanticizing of the Confederacy and those who supported Slavery, segregation and white supremacy throughout America's history. Unlike many of the statues and memorials now under scrutiny, including the Columbus plaque, however, this local cemetery pillar seems to have some notable nuance to it. In this case, these veterans of the South's military who are buried around it chose to live in the North after the defeat of the Confederacy, and wanted to be buried together. They purchased these grave sites and this monument marks their small portion of the larger cemetery. Our Town Supervisor, who initially raised objections to this monument a few years back, subsequently investigated and came to believe -- in large part due to a conversation with the then-Mayor of Hastings -- it was not erected as a celebration of the Confederacy or white supremacy but more as a monument of reconciliation between North and South. The inscription on the monument from the poem “The High Tide at Get­tys­burg,” by Will Henry Thomp­son honors all the war dead, not just those of the South, and has more of an anti-war message to it, although it certainly does reference the veterans of the Confederate Army who are interred in its shadow. So this structure seems less of a celebration of the mythical glorious South and its pseudo-romantic Lost Cause than the others. It must also be noted that this memorial is in a private cemetery, not on public land which the Columbus plaque is, as are so many of the monuments and statues that still openly celebrate the Confederacy throughout the country. Their existence has long been troubling and even traumatic to African Americans especially and all anti-racists who walk past them on a regular basis. Many protesters who have long spoken out against these many highly-conspicuous Confederate monuments have argued that they should be relocated to museums and private property and away from public spaces. This one is already there. None of this excuses the fact that these soldiers participated in war against the United States in defense of slavery. But it appears that nothing about the monument praises, glorifies or celebrates that.

As articulated by Swiderski, Bennett, the GHRAC and others, the argument to continue to leave alone the Confederate monument is as follows:

1. It’s located in a private space, not in a public square like most of the offending Confederate statuary being removed.

2. It’s an unobtrusive obelisk, not a statue of Robert E. Lee or a Confederate soldier.  No one has ever noticed or been bothered by it. 

3.  The intent of the monument is to honor a group of Confederate veterans who chose new homes in New York, and not to memorialize the Confederacy’s “Lost Cause” of rebellion in defense of slavery.  

4. The message conveyed by the monument and its inscription is sectional reconciliation, not division. 

While these arguments appear persuasive, I believe they undersell the complexity of the monument’s intent and the context of its construction.  

1.  Mt. Hope Cemetery is a private space, but it is supported by the public by a complete property tax exemption which gives the public the right to express interest, although not to determine, its operations.   It’s not as though the Town of Greenburgh has no history of intrusion into  cemeteries: the town just won a federal court case brought by Ferncliff Cemetery which failed to persuade the Court that the town’s zoning rulings are intrusive.   Private property rights do not immunize the owner from public scrutiny when the property at issue – here a 60’ tall monument – is notorious and visible.  There can be no other possible explanation for the obelisk’s size but that, while crowning the circle of veterans’ graves in Mt. Hope Cemetery, it was designed to be observed by the passing public. In various studies of Confederate monuments, I cannot find a close parallel example of a monument standing on private space that similarly invites public scrutiny.   This private/public blurring is just another aspect that makes this monument unique and complex. 

2.   Indeed, the monument is a simple obelisk (not a pillar) in contrast with the obtrusive statues of Confederate soldiers commonly found in public spaces in the South.  The fact that the obelisk does not broadcast obvious Confederate iconography is a strong argument for its continued neglect by the public. Yet, I am not convinced that previous public obliviousness toward the monument justifies ignoring its meaning, regardless of public engagement in the past or today.  Nor does the apparent neutrality of the image presented subsume the message conveyed, and interpreting the message is where I depart from the other commentators.      

3.  I hesitate to ascribe motivations to the United Confederate Veterans New York chapter that purchased the plot and arranged for the monument funded by Confederate veteran Charles Rousse.  We do not know if these men moved to New York for principled reasons as well as economic.  We do not know if they foreswore the white supremacy which was the cornerstone of the Confederacy’s cause. We do know, however that for these men, their Confederate military service was so important that they chose to be buried as group of Confederate veterans.  

4.  To me, the reconciliation message inferred by the proponents of leaving the monument alone is most problematic.

For example, the passage from the poem “High Tide at Gettysburg” inscribed on the monument is mournful and regretful of the waste of war. But when reading Thompson’s entire poem, the context of that regret is the failure of Pickett’s charge on Gettysburg’s third day and the eventual defeat of the Confederacy. Just a few stanza’s above the passage selected for the monument, we read that “Above the bayonets, mixed and crossed, Men saw a grey, gigantic ghost, receding through the battle-cloud, And hear across the tempest loud The death-cry of a nation lost.” Thompson’s poem, while eloquent, is the epitome of post-Civil War Lost Cause mythology regretting the Confederacy’s demise.  The veterans who chose the poem for their monument signaled that indeed war is waste, but that lament arises specifically because Confederate lives were lost in defeat.

I agree that Reconciliation is the message of the monument.  But this Reconciliation message exists within a specific context.  By the May 1897 dedication ceremony at Mt. Hope, post-Civil 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 white, Southern “redeemers” who overthrew Reconstruction 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.”  It is no coincidence that the 1890s was also the pinnacle of construction of Confederate monuments across the South as whites reclaimed public spaces. 

As Caroline Janney writes in Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits or Reconciliation, the extent of North and South reconciliation has been exaggerated as Union veterans refused to forgive Southern treason or to forsake their African American comrades in arms. But while many veterans resisted reconciliation, much of the Northern public, who shared the racial prejudices of the Southern whites, willingly put aside the war’s bitterness in service of National unity and, toward that goal, acquiesced in the establishment of formalized segregation in the South.  Few Northerners believed in black civil rights to the degree that they were willing to dissent from the public spirit of reconciliation that prevailed by the mid-1890s. Ignoring the erosion of African American rights smoothed the path for ceremonies like the Mt. Hope monument dedication in 1897.  David Blight’s Race and Reunion is the seminal work on the emergence and meaning of post-Civil War reconciliation. 

To complicate matters further and add yet another tangent, Westchester County had a very troubling history of resistance to the Union cause in the Civil War and interference in the service of African Americans.  Perhaps the UCV Chapter knew well they would find little resistance to their memorialization project in Hastings-on-Hudson.  For the story of the struggles of Westchester’s Black Civil War soldiers, see Dr. Edythe Quinn’s Freedom Journey. 

The “leave it alone” arguments summarized above from politicians, historians, and even a human rights advocacy group may be correct and the only practical response but still leave me uneasy.  It does not sit well with me that my town hosts the largest Confederate Monument in the North, private property or not.  I don’t have an answer or even a concrete proposal for what do to with the monument.  There is no public will for its removal and practicalities would interfere even if this were the case.  Contextualization through construction of markers explaining the monument is a possibility. Or perhaps raising funds for a monument to honor the men remembered in Dr. Quinn’s work.  Or maybe education through teaching the monument and its context in local schools is the best response.  In any event, we need further public discussion and not to continue to ignore our history. 

Town of Greenburgh School District Enrollment Disparities

The New York State Education Department has finally released all of its 2019-2020 school year enrollment stats for public, nonpublic and even home schooling.  (See http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/IRSReports.html.)   This data was collected from every school district in the state last fall, before the closures.   Among much fascinating data, we can calculate the total number of school age children within each school district and observe trends.  And trends there are:  by adding the total of public school, nonpublic school (parochial and private) and home schooled kids, we can get the total of school age (K-12) children in each school district.  Yes, a few kids will be undercounted who are somehow "off the grid" or are schooled in residential programs or out of state, but that won't be many.   Looking at a three year window from the 2016-17 school year to the present 2019-2020, we see that the number of K-12 kids in the Town of Greenburgh has remained basically the same, dropping by only 52 students from 17,721 to 17,669.    But within that total, we see major variations among the school districts.

A. TOTAL K-12 CHILDREN PER SCHOOL DISTRICT 
(PUBLIC +PRIVATE/PAROCHIAL + HOME SCHOOLED)

DISTRICT	16-17	19-20	% change
GC	2313	2085	-10%
Elmsford	1161	1170	1%
Ardsley	2152	2380	11%
Edgemont	2030	2077	2%
Tarrytown*	3017	2937	-3%
Irvington	1878	1912	2%
Dobbs Ferry	1590	1637	3%
Hastings	1672	1704	2%
Pocantico*	331	293	-11%
Valhalla*	1577	1471	-7%
TOTAL	17721	17669	0%

NOTES: Pocantico, Tarrytown and Valhalla school districts include children from outside of the Town Greenburgh.    Pocantico is also only a K-8 school district.  Also, I'm not including pre-K children in these numbers as only three of the 10 Greenburgh school districts enroll pre-K kids and only in limited numbers.

Now, let's break down the totals in A above into public v. nonpublic.

B. TOTAL K-12 CHILDREN PER SCHOOL DISTRICT 
PUBLIC SCHOOL ONLY

DISTRICT	16-17	19-20	% change
GC	1736	1583	-9%
Elmsford	949	967	2%
Ardsley	2096	2326	11%
Edgemont	1965	2050	4%
Tarrytown*	2718	2685	-1%
Irvington	1746	1781	2%
Dobbs Ferry	1491	1517	2%
Hastings	1598	1654	4%
Pocantico*	309	285	-8%
Valhalla*	1455	1387	-5%
TOTAL	16063	16235	1%

What jumps out above is the decrease in school age kids that cover the north half of Greenburgh:  GC, Tarrytown, Elmsford, Valhalla and Pocantico Hills.   Admittedly, Tarrytown, Valhalla and PHSD cover areas outside of Greenburgh, so we can't be sure what part of those declines are within Greenburgh.  It is puzzling that GC has such a steep drop while adjacent Elmsford has a small increase.   It's no surprise that Hastings and Edgemont have solid increase but Ardsley's big leap is remarkable. 

C.  TOTAL K-12 CHILDREN PER SCHOOL DISTRICT

PRIVATE/PAROCHIAL/HOME SCHOOLED

DISTRICT	16-17	19-20	% change
GC	577	502	-13%
Elmsford	212	203	-4%
Ardsley	56	54	-4%
Edgemont	65	27	-58%
Tarrytown*	299	252	-16%
Irvington	132	131	-1%
Dobbs Ferry	99	120	21%
Hastings	74	50	-32%
Pocantico*	22	8	-64%
Valhalla*	122	87	-29%
TOTAL	1658	1434	-14%

What explains the nearly across-the-board steep drop in non-public school educated kids, while public school enrollment has slightly increased?  Why is Dobbs Ferry the exception?  Have property taxes reached a breaking point in Greenburgh where young families no longer contemplate moving here with the expectation of sending kids to nonpublic schools (i.e., mostly Catholic parochial schools)?

Which districts most attract young families?  We can get a sense of this from looking at school age kids as a % of the district population.  Using A above and district pop numbers from https://censusreporter.org, we can get the following and find huge disparities.    

D. SCHOOL AGE (K-12) KIDS AS % OF DISTRICT POPULATION

DISTRICT	K-12 KIDS	District Pop	% SCHOOL KIDS
GC	2085	21609	10%
Elmsford	1170	9157	13%
Ardsley	2380	9214	26%
Edgemont	2077	7606	27%
Tarrytown*	2937	19859	15%
Irvington	1912	9448	20%
Dobbs Ferry	1637	10199	16%
Hastings	1704	8659	20%
Pocantico*	293	4879	6%
Valhalla*	1474	10425	14%
TOTAL	17669	111055	16%

Again we see a north v. south Greenburgh divide, with the north-end districts all at 15% or lower for school-age children as a % of their population.


Summary:  Greenburgh demographics are fascinating to examine because there are ten different school districts.  Greenburgh's overall population is steady (in contrast to upstate New York which is shrinking) including school enrollment.  There however are discrepancies and they vary geographically: the town's Southside districts are on a multi-year upward trend in attracting families with school age kids while the Northside districts are falling.  Anyone want to suggests reasons for this?