Vote YES for the Scarsdale Schools Budget
- Details
- Hits: 3646
This letter was submitted by Scarsdale resident David Brodsky: Dear Scarsdale 10583.com: After months of study and open hearings, the Board of Education is proposing a capital and expense budget that is made up of many many individual items designed to meet the values and educational needs of our community. One such individual item, the proposal to add about $325,000 to the capital budget for a new wellness center, has been the subject of several letters about the forthcoming vote on the school budget, which this year requires a 60% vote to pass because the proposed budget exceeds the NYS Tax Cap by 0.55%.
In my view, a new wellness center is consistent with our Village's values and needs because it will be vital to installing lifelong habits in our students of health knowledge and fitness. But, even if one disagrees with my opinion, don't let disagreement over one $325,000 item defeat a $145 budget. Especially because, with or without the new wellness center, the budget would still exceed the NYS tax cap, because capital expenses like the wellness center are not counted toward the cap.
So why is the cap exceeded? Because, despite the Board's consistent efforts to find economies wherever they can, including keeping growth for programs and services in our seven schools to only 0.57% increase, they cannot control NY State mandated increases in the retirement systems that amount to almost 2% of the new budget and, unlike the capital budget, count directly against the tax cap. So, in the real world, the wellness center argument is a red herring.
On the merits, a vote of yes on May 21 is vital for our community.
1. Like me, many readers of this letter fall into the category of "empty nesters," where the focus of your lives no longer revolves around what is being built in the high school, or what courses are being offered, or when holidays fall in the Scarsdale School calendar. But there's one issue that should resonate with all of you: Scarsdale is known nationally for its schools, it has always been extremely attractive to live here because of its schools, and our property values have been consistently high over the years because of its schools.
2. The District's school budget growth of 2.47% is the third lowest in 30 years. As mentioned above, the largest portion of this growth – 1.9% -- is due to NY State mandated increases in the retirement systems that we have no control over.
3. Funding for education program improvements, while reduced in this budget, keeps our curriculum at the forefront of education practices and focused on innovation for the future – all of which are well-regarded worldwide. Meantime, the District and Board will continue to monitor the student/teacher ratios at SHS to maintain the low class size that is so important for student success.
So, vote YES on May 21 from 7 am to 9 pm at the Middle School. Ask others, including your out-of-home children, still registered to vote in NY, to vote YES. And hold your head high with Scarsdale Pride when we pass this budget.
David M. Brodsky
Photo Opps
- Details
- Hits: 9902
Another busy May in Scarsdale! Here are pictures of recent events around town contributed by Scarsdale10583 readers: Fox Meadow Elementary School held their fifth grade party at House of Sports on April 26, 2013. House of Sports hosted carnival type games and inflatables and organized field games to celebrate the end of 5th grade. Photo credit: Jennifer Love
The JCC of Mid-Westchester celebrated distinguished Board member Karen Spar Kasner's role in revitalizing
the agency, and presented a Community Service Award to Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Scarsdale) at its "Continuing the Growth" Gala at Old Oaks Country Club in Purchase, NY, on May 2nd. The evening raised more than $180,000 for the agency. A highlight of the evening was the unveiling of plans for the Karen Spar Kasner Play Center, established by funding from Kasner's family and friends, which will replace the existing outdoor playground at the JCC.
(Pictured from left to right) Melissa Brown Eisenberg, Ophira Cukierman, Nikki Rosee, Liz DeRobertis, Yael Wepman, Jessica Anthony, Kimberly Frankel, Andrea Miller, Stephanie Kirwan, Meredith Kent; all of Scarsdale. Copyright: Michael Priest Photography
St. Pius' 1st First Communion class to celebrate their ceremony in the newly renovated church. The ceremony was held on May 4, 2013. Photo credit: Jennifer Love
Man Wielding Illegal Gun Arrested at Fenway Golf Club
- Details
- Hits: 3976
Things got rough at Fenway Golf Club in Scarsdale on Wednesday, April 24th when police received a report that a caddie had threatened another caddie with a gun. Police found that the fight occurred in the employee locker room and that the caddie was in possession an illegal gun.
Cordell S. Hambric, age 20, of Waterbury, CT was arrested at the club for Menacing with a Weapon 2nd Degree, a Class "A" Misdemeanor, Criminal Possession of a Weapon, a Class "A" Misdemeanor and Criminal Possession of a Firearm, a Class "E" Felony. He was brought before the judge at Village Hall and sent to the Westchester County Jail as he did not have $5,000 in bail to post. He is due back in Scarsdale Village Court on May 1st. The Scarsdale Police Department is continuing the to investigate the incident.
Update: the two men involved are not Fenway employees - they caddie as "independent contractors."
Battle Over Affordable Housing Heats Up in Westchester
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 5113
Concerns about over development in Scarsdale could extend far beyond the shoehorning of oversized houses onto undersized lots or the destruction of heritage trees. If the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has it their way, villages like Scarsdale and Bronxville could find their local zoning ordinances under attack. These zoning ordinances ensure the unique character of these towns as they define minimum lot sizes, maximum height and bulk, residential vs. commercial zones and the siting of single-family vs. multi-family homes. Without these ordinances, apartment houses and town houses could spring up on 2-acre lots in Murray Hill, clogging residential streets with parked cars and straining the local infrastructure and educational system.
County Executive Rob Astorino paid a visit to the Scarsdale Forum on Thursday night April 25 and presented his side of the County's battle with HUD to meet their obligations as stipulated in the 2009 Affordable Housing Settlement that Astorino inherited when he came into office. Among other remedies, the court mandated Westchester to build 750 units of affordable housing at a total cost of $51.6 million. Ironically the County is well ahead of schedule on construction of the units and plans to complete 305 by the end of 2013.
Building the required housing has not been the source of the clash between Astorino's office and the HUD Chair. Two additional requirements of the legislation have caused much consternation.
First, the settlement required Astorino to promote sources of income legislation that would bar landlords from discriminating against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers or other government income to pay their rent. Rather than advance this legislation, Astorino vetoed the bill when he came into office. After HUD threatened to penalize Westchester by reallocating $7.4 in Community Development Block Grants due to Westchester this month, Astorino has re-introduced legislation that bans discrimination against potential homeowners and renters based on their source of income and has vowed to sign it. Astorino has also appealed to Governor Cuomo to lobby for the HUD funds and administer them to Westchester.
However, he still faces another hurdle.
The most vexing portion of the settlement requires Westchester to submit a zoning analysis and a plan to overcome "exclusionary zoning practices" in Westchester. Specifically, the County was ordered to:
- Identify local zoning practices that have exclusionary impact or fail to take into account regional need
- Develop a process to notify municipalities of zoning issues that hinder the County's obligations and changes that must be made as well as consequences for failing to make them.
- Identify types of zoning practices that would, if not remedied by the municipality lead the County to pursue legal action.
In a letter to the County dated March 13, 2013 the Federal Monitor, James Johnson, asks the County to assess the impact of restrictive zoning practices including:
- Restrictions that limit or prohibit multifamily housing development
- Limitations on the size of a development
- Restrictions on lot size of density requirements that encourage single-family housing
- Limitations on townhouse development
and "the impact such practices have on racial and ethnic composition."
Westchester County has submitted three such zoning analyses and failed to identify exclusionary zoning practices. According to Astorino, "The County has supplied volumes of data as well as a thorough legal analysis showing Westchester's zoning is not exclusionary." In comments at the Scarsdale Forum meeting, Astorino charged HUD with refusing to accept the County's zoning analyses because they did not reach HUD's conclusions – not because the data was invalid or deficient.
Does HUD have the right to force municipalities to change their zoning codes? Professor John Nolon of the Pace University Law Land Use Center, who consulted on the case said in June, 2012, "Only towns, villages and cities have zoning power in New York. There is no constitutional or statutory definition of exclusionary zoning in New York to determine the obligations that these communities have to zone for housing that can be made affordable by housing developers." He cited the "Berenson" cases in New York which ruled on issues of affordable housing and said though these cases require the County to consider "regional needs," they did not define what region needed consideration. Is it Westchester County? New York City? The Tri-State Region? Connecticut? He concluded by saying that though the region's Economic Development Council has been charged by the state with developing plans, none of its current plans establish regional housing needs or a methodology for estimating them.
How to get beyond this impasse?
After HUD turned down all three analyses, James Johnson, who is the Federal Monitor assigned to the case, has now undertaken his own zoning analysis and sent letters to each of the municipalities with a report card for each showing their progress on meeting targets for the number of affordable units. Though Scarsdale has passed a model zoning ordinance that requires developers to build one affordable unit with each group of 10 market-rate units, the report says that the ordinance "provides no zoning incentives for affordable housing." The report notes that "the few areas in which multifamily housing is allowed as-of-right are "fully built out" and recommends that the village "provide density or other incentives for affordable housing, mapping additional areas where multifamily house is permitted as-of-right, and permitting accessory housing in "faux" garages as well as quadraplexes and cottage-style housing." It shows that as of the 2000 census only .4% of total village acreage is zoned for multi-family housing and that 4% of the population is Hispanic or Black – the only two minority groups considered in the settlement.
Since Scarsdale is already fully developed, the only way for the Village to expand its inventory of affordable housing would be to change the zoning code, an idea that is unpopular with residents who are already up in arms about development and absorbing big annual tax increases to pay for schools and services.
The biggest surprise in the "report card" was the assertion that Scarsdale is targeted to build 160 AFFH units – a number pulled from "The unadopted Affordable Housing Allocation Plan produced in 2005 by the County's planning department." The letter states that "none of which have been built in the interim."
According to Astorino, this same 2005 report called for the construction of 10,678 units County-wide, far beyond the scope of the 750 units mandated in the 2009 settlement.
In an April 15, 2013 response to the Federal Monitor, the Scarsdale Board of Trustees told Johnson that "the Village has fundamental disagreements with the position taken in your letter.....Specifically we note that the Village in not a party to the litigation and settlement agreement referred to in the "report card. " Further, the "unadopted Affordable Housing Allocation Plan does not impose any obligation on the Village."
Astorino says that these new targets "expand the agreement beyond the four quarters of the settlement," and that HUD has taken a very aggressive stance, claiming that any restriction is a restrictive zoning practice that must be abolished. Saying "there is no rhyme or reason" for HUD's demands, he called on residents to contact their congressmen and senators to voice their concerns about HUD's demands.
As it stands today, $7.4 million in grant money could be lost for Westchester if the County fails to comply. HUD is also calling for Westchester municipalities to make fundamental changes to their zoning codes that would radically alter the character of the 31 municipalities who, according to the outdated 2000 census numbers, do not house adequate numbers of black and Hispanic residents. The zoning code HUD is challenging includes lot size, stipulations for single family housing and structure bulk and density, which is common among suburban communities across the country.
Many in Scarsdale are shocked and offended that HUD is charging the village with exclusionary zoning and racism. The population is a diverse mix of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, and others who live together in harmony. As one 40-year resident said, "anyone who says Scarsdale is racist simply doesn't know the community."
Can a federal agency force a locality to change their zoning code? That's the battle that could be in the offing.
Where is the Village in a Park?
- Details
- Hits: 5283
This letter was sent to Scarsdale10583 by Lika Levi of Lockwood Road on April 16 and published here with some editing by the site administrator: Dear Editor: I continue to be concerned for the fiscal as well as the physical well-being of our dear Village that once was known as Village-in-a-Park. We may soon ask, "Where is the park? Where is the open space, where are the trees, where are the beautiful stately homes basking in the shade of age old stately trees? Where is all this? Where are the homes built in 1925, dignified, reserved, quietly elegant, understated?" They are all going one by one: just attend any of the meetings of the so called Committee for Historic Preservation. They approve demolitions.
In spite of so called regulation, buildings way too big for their lots are going up everywhere in our Village, just drive on Rock Creek Lane or even closer, look across Village Hall on Crane Road where instead of a historical building that was once there, now two big McMansions are reminders there of the inadequacy of our building regulations. Be present at any meeting of the Panning Board or the Board of Appeals if you need more examples, any month. Or, better still, to receive their agendas add your email address to the list serve from Village Hall.
Every mechanism seems to be here to regulate and stop such insult and yet every regulation everywhere is ineffective. They say democracy is not a spectator sport; this adage seems very relevant today in Scarsdale. Our history, our environmental values, our architecture, our neighborhoods, our trees all are up for grabs to the highest bidder every day at Village Hall. It is a very busy place.
Our volunteer and professional staff work long hours to safeguard our interest, and yet the developer seems to have the say at the end of the day. There are now drainage basins everywhere, wetlands are being built upon, lots subdivided, a real building boom going on in Scarsdale as lots are being divided every which way, boards approving all that come their way and the average tax paying citizen left in the cold of the harsh reality that our village is degrading our life-style deteriorating. There is now even a sewage tax imposed above and beyond all the other raises in our taxes above the CPI (Consumer Price Index) of course.
Nobody moved here to see more buildings or fewer trees. We moved here for nature, for our freedom, for the schools, for the bird calls, for the rabbit we see occasionally in our yards. Yet, these building practices are creating habitat loss right here in our backyards even as I write this. When the developer's backhoe hits the ground, it is the executioner's song. Turning a blind eye makes us robots. A Silent Spring (by Rachel Carson) is in the works.
Even though there is One Palmer going up at the intersection at Heathcote Five Corners, a huge monster, 2-4 Weaver Street is being planned. It is again on the Planning Baord agenda, this time as the first item on agenda for April 24th at 8:00 p.m. Their proposal is to add further insult to the injury: a building more than three times the size of One Palmer, this while selling village land at bargain price or no price.
While our taxes are going up: both school and village, while our roads are full of pot holes, while there is no provision to add to our green space to make more parkland... while the rest of the world is crying out, screaming about global climate change, carbon footprint, in the aftermath of Sandy and obvious repercussions of our damage to our environment, Scarsdale, the suburban community that first passed zoning laws in 1925, is now in 2013 building like no other.
If you think this is not right, if you would like to see a stop to this conquer and plunder mentality, please come to the meeting at Village Hall on April 24th at 8:00 p.m.
Let the Planning Board know the only alternative to 2-4 Weaver Street is not to sell village land, but to acquire more to make a park there at that same location. After more than five years of negotiation that I know about, countless hearings, many emails, it is time we put a stop to this continuous aggravation. Nobody has the time or the energy to deal with this over and over again, year after year, board after board. We are bored, frankly. The zoning at Heathcote Five Corners has to be updated so we do not face such monstrous proposals any more, ever.
Planning at every level has to plan for a better Scarsdale, not a worse one. Laws, regulations need to be revised, updated. The FAR reduced, commercial area zoning updated to give way to less building, more green space. We cannot be writing Scarsdale's death sentence at every land use board meeting. Yet, this is precisely what is happening over and over again at meeting after meeting, despite of many letters, many objections from activist and concerned groups and individuals alike.
After the monstrous One Palmer, hideous 7 Popham, colossal Christie Place, we need a park, and none other than a park. I would love to have One 
Palmer razed, and a park made there as well.
The only acceptable solution, now is to acquire 2-4 Weaver by eminent domain and let this community have the park it deserves and sorely needs. Residents who have been here longer than I remind me there was once a plan to make a parking lot at De Lima, and another parking lot at Chase Park. In 2013, it is time for a park at Heathcote Five Corners.
I hope readers of this site agree with me and support me. We need your input. Please contact me and let me know you agree with me.
I would love to see many of you at the meeting on April 24th at 8:00 p.m. in Rutherford Hall. 2-4 Weaver is the first item on the agenda. If you cannot make it to the meeting, please e-mail me at Likallevi@aol.com with " Scarsdale" in the subject line and I will add your name to the list of concerned citizens wishing for reform in our building codes. Email me your comments or call me at (914) 722-0004.
We have to stop this and let our government know we do not approve of these deleterious practices.
Remember, "Democracy is not a spectator sport." Tomorrow is too late, call or e-mail me today.
Lika L. Levi
Lockwood Road
Photo credit: Lika L. Levi
