Jim A.: You are misinformed. Crossing guards are exclusively under the purview of the City of Rye. Dr. Shine and the Rye City School District have no authority to place crossing guards on any public street, corner or intersection in Rye. This is the City of Rye's responsibility. The City hires and pays for all crossing guards. For the School District to do so would expose the District and Rye's taxpayers to significant liabilities.

Charmian: I'm merely providing you with information and have no idea why you decided to go into attack mode. Did I speak about the bond issue or the provision of alternate approaches? No. The locker rooms were constructed in the mid-1960s and opened officially for use in January 1965 following the school's 1964/1965 holiday break. Stacked with boys on the first floor and girls directly above, the square footage allocated to each gender's facility has to be close to being the same. It is even possible that the girls facility might be slightly larger. Do you have the square footage numbers? In fact I voted yes on the bond referendum and will do so again when a revised proposal is offered to Rye residents by the BOE. So from my perspective no alternative, "cost-free" option was or is necessary.

Charmain: Both the boys and girls locker rooms at Rye High School were constructed in 1964/1965 and neither has been renovated since. So it's not just the girls who prepare for phys ed classes in substandard conditions, it's all students both boys and girls.

Bob: In your five plus years on the BOE how many school budgets did you not support or vote against? Why the change of heart? You dedicate five lines of text to the good news, yet twenty-three lines are offered as to why you are not supporting the budget. How did you vote today?

It's Disbrow Park, not Disbrow Field.

. . . . . or "The Old Garnet! . . .

Dear Bob: Before addressing me publicly on this forum, please note that I am "garnet10580" and not "Garnet Graduate". Attributing the opinions of "Garnet Graduate" to me is inappropriate. Thank you. Steve

Now Jay S. is really showing his newness to Rye. Who remembers the Black Bass site as "Oldbody's", or in my parents' youth, "The Jungle Club"?

Let me get a clear understanding of the issue. 1.) Each Rye homeowner, business, multi-family dwelling, school or church must clear their sidewalks of snow within 24 hours of the end of the storm or face a fine. It's the law. 2.) Removal of snow from the crosswalks, and access to them from sidewalks, is the City's responsibility? Is this true? 3.) However a problem exists. Whose responsibility is it regarding the removal of snow from corner crosswalks and sidewalks especially when the City has "plowed in" these corners (including the crosswalks and sidewalks) while clearing the roads? It would seem to me that the City should comply with the same 24-hour requirement for sidewalk or crosswalk snow removal as it imposes on its citizens. If unable to do so, then the City should change the law so that all responsible parties are uniformly subject to the same requirements. Why are Rye's citizens being held to a higher standard than the City itself is able to achieve?

Notes for "Really" and "tedc": 1.) The City of Rye paid not one red cent for Osborn-related legal fees - they took the political cover of refusing to pay their fair share of the litigation costs relating to their own defense. The School District shouldered 100% of that burden despite repeated approaches to the City regarding proportional cost-sharing. 2.) Recall that it was The Osborn that brought forth the legal actions following its placement on the tax rolls by the City Assessor. The City of Rye was the "Defendent" and the Rye City School District was the "Intervenor Respondent".

Where does the City of Rye plan to source the funding for the $1.3M refund due The Osborn? Does the City have a Tax Certiorari Reserve Account? If so, what is its balance? I was under the impression, that unlike the School District, the City had not reserved against this possible settlement payment.

Too bad the Boston Post Road between Parsons Street and the Playland Parkway ramp isn't in as good shape as Purchase Street was in 1909. Where can we get some of that good old Standard Oil Asphalt Macadam Binder B?

But Bob, of course you would have, right?

ted: That comment is pure garbage.

I understand besides the past elimination of "Hang the Huskies", that this year "Beat Harrison" are words not to be uttered. What's next ? ? ? ?

Its really like "Where's Waldo". If they are anywhwere near the schools they're invisible. What is really funny is that the RPD can't be seen anywhere near the RHS/RMS complex during school hours - sticking strictly to their sectors. But oftentimes during the "overnight" there are one or two patrol cars idling in the parking lot facing Milton Road. So much for staffing the sectors - only when it is convenient or doesn't involve any work.

Jim: Regretfully no matter what the staffing levels of the RPD, they have never been a force or a presence in and around the four Rye school campuses. Despite repeated requests from the Rye City School District the RPD refuses to place officers at critical school area intersections to direct and control concentrated school drop-off and pick-up traffic for two 15-20 minute segments (one AM and the other PM) on school days. Interestingly a RPD officer directs traffic at Rye Country Day School on a paid basis paid by RCDS. Also of interest the Mamaroneck Police Department sends an officer on school days to the intersection of Hornbake Road and Boston Post Road for traffic control and safety purposes at Rye Neck MS/HS arrival and dismissal times. The officer even parks the police car with its lights flashing in the middle of the BPR as a further safety precaution/ warning device. If Mamaroneck PD can do it, why can't the Rye PD?

This recently concluded RCSD/RTA negotiation is a huge win for the Board of Education and the citizen taxpayers of Rye. The wage settlement alone (@ +9% over 6 years, or 1.5% p.a.) must be 50% or so less, over a six year period, than wage rate numbers talked about at the beginning of negotiations. Receiving health benefit premium co-payments of 15% of costs by 2012 is another major victory and sets the stage for all other RCSD employee unions to follow suit. Over time this number must rise to industry-like co-payments in the 25% neighborhood. Now hopefully other Westchester School District Boards of Education will have the strength and fortitude of the Rye BOE in their current and future negotiations. It can be done as shown here in Rye. Stephen M. Feeney, Rye City School District Board of Education 1991-2006

Average Citizen: I believe your statement about traffic violation fines is incorrect. While there are New York State surcharges on traffic tickets, the majority (in the neighborhood of 75% to 80%) of the ticket revenue goes to the municipality and not to New York State. Steve Feeney

WINTERTIME STREET SLEDDING Anyone out there remember when the Rye DPW partnered with Rye Recreation to close about ten to twelve City residential streets in various Rye neighborhoods for sledding, skiing and other recreational purposes by placing saw horses with hanging oil lamps at both ends of a given street? All traffic was prohibited except that of the local street residents. When neighbors needed access, the sledders would temporarily move the barricade replacing it after the car passsed into its home street and driveway. DPW plow blades were raised a half-foot to provide the best sledding surface, and "for the greater good" the neighbors didn't complain that their streets weren't totally cleared of snow down to the blacktop. In exchange, the sledding children and their parents would often shovel the driveways and front walks of the residents with a sledding course on their street. Street lights illuminated the hills and many a weary Rye youth spend ten or more hours on "snow days" sledding from morning well into the night punctuated only by lunch and dinner breaks at home or with sledding friends and hot chocolates served by their "host" street neighbors. Such activities and neighborliness helped make Rye a "community" providing children and their families with positive outlets and special opportunities to participate in healthful and genuine activities (and not video games). There was nothing wrong then, and there is nothing wrong now, with the City enabling solid, clean, healthful and fun activities from a kinder/gentler and less litigous time. Regarding the present sledding dilemma at Rye Golf Club, the City should take all appropriate precautions to protect itself, and by extension its citizens, from lawsuits while still enabling winter/snow-related activities to occur on the great hills of the golf course. Certainly an acceptable "middle ground" exists short of an outright ban on these activities. Where were these sledding streets you might ask? I'll start the list with the Reymont Avenue hill (from Moorehead Drive to Parkway Drive) in Rye Gardens. You readers provide the rest. Steve Feeney

While I understand people's disappointment with the loss of the Durland asset, the homes to be built on the land will provide meaningful (in comparison to a Rye Gate house, or homes in other neighborhoods with older housing stock) tax revenue to the City and School District at a time when everyone, including individual homeowners/taxpayers, need the revenue. Once designated as tax-exempt, it is unusual for parcels like Durland to be returned to the tax rolls. Usually it is the opposite (Byrd Homestead).

Re Busing: The minimal amount of past busing to/from the elementary schools (never to RMS/RHS) provided by the Rye City School District was more generous than required by NYS regulation (various distance/miles from school cut points). After conducting ridership surveys that yielded statistics that less than 50% of the families eligible for in-District busing actually placed their children on the buses, the Rye BOE eliminated busing about fifteen years ago (while I was a member of the Rye City School District Board of Education) having concluded busing to be a waste of taxpayer money. In two successive years in-District busing was eliminated followed by the cancelation of out-of-District busing (to private schools). Busing of special education students to out-of-District programs is required by NY State law/regulation and has been/continues to be provided by the District. Also, while somewhat efficient in getting the children to school in the mornings, busing is not effective in conjunction with the afternoon dismisals at the elementary schools due to in-school, after-school clubs or family determined/parent arranged after-school activities (dance, play dates, piano, sports, doctors appointments, haircuts, etal) requiring children to be picked up at school and delivered to their next activity on a timely basis rather than spending an incremental 15-45 minutes as the bus ran through its neighborhood routes. Busing in today's environment would cost millions of dollars annually, would inflate the School District budget and would result in an uptick in the tax rate of 1.5% to 2% in the first year followed by annual inflationary increases thereafter. Rye has been fortunate that the past dollars dedicated to inefficient and ineffective busing programs have been diverted and invested in the classroom in the delivery of educational services rather than on busing services not utilized by Rye's families. In short, busing is not the answer to Rye's traffic safety challenges. Modification of each individual's behavior and awareness is truly the answer. If anyone would like more details on the history of busing in Rye and the past actions taken by the Board of Education, feel free to contact me. Stephen M. Feeney