This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Time to double check what the City has actually done with the emergency. While the mass e-mail that went out to residents said that the fine has been raised to $250, e-mail correspondence with the City Manager says otherwise.
So many issues with this action by the City. Any planned enforcement or will this be another case (see leaf blower ban; see plastic bag ban) of neighbors having to report on neighbors? How are people who aren't on the City's e-mail list serve or who don't read this website to find out about this emergency and fine etc? Since Suez gets water from both NY and CT, why not just shift 100% of consumption to NY? This approach is based on Suez saying that they get water from both systems AND that NY has no issue. Have all surrounding communities which also use Suez / CT water enacted a similar ban? Let's consider Purchase for example. Yes, it's been dry and action is probably needed, but this one seems half baked.
While the watering ban and a proposed changed to local law will be discussed at the City Council meeting tonight, October 5th, it is worth observing that the City continues its automatic sprinkling of the town green.
Is there any enforcement behind this "requirement"? I note quite a few businesses and residences which seem to have not gotten the message even so far as allowing their sprinklers to run during the recent - albeit limited - rain.
Ted, Thanks for posting the map. It's helpful to see the spread across Rye. And while Cell coverage for us T-mobile users is awful on Milton point, I understand that the intention of the new poles / towers is for wifi-like internet access as opposed to telephone service. Regardless, they're a problem for the affected home owners and their abutting neighbors. Hopefully we'll see the City apply its own laws. This issue seems to me to be at least as important as the City insisting on its role in the permitting / approval process for work at Playland.
While I am also opposed to the proposed installation of new cell phone towers throughout Rye, I think it important to take the concern about "radiation" with a grain of salt. Yes, concerns have been expressed for 20+ years about cell phone emissions as a potential cause of cancer. But despite many studies on the matter, no link has been established between the level and frequency of emissions from cell phones and cancer or other health issues. This is a red herring in the argument. Rather, the City Council should stick to using its regulator authority to address aesthetic issues with the proposal. There is also the small matter of property rights which must be protected as well. And, if any new poles are required, I would ask that the City make sure that this time, they are not placed smack dab in the middle (or even encroaching upon) pedestrian right of way whether or not a sidewalk has actually been paved.
Zillow shows 47 Greenhaven Road to be for sale at just under $1.5million - which looks to be the same amount as the revised tax assessment value for the property.
Given the general benefits of walking and the ease of walking to Rye High / Middle school from most parts of Rye, an easy answer is for the students to leave the car keys at home.
Engel's cluelessness about Rye's mayor reinforces his irrelevance to Rye and Westchester. The redistricting that brought him to us was a setup. Sending him back to NYC where he belongs will have to wait for the next redistricting which will be in, what, 10 years?
Thanks to the Rye Merchants for putting on this great event which gave families yet another reason to come to "downtown"!
While absolutely appropriate for the Superintendent to report this incident to the parents and public, his letter comes across as little more than a CYA effort. Why is there no comment about what will be done by the schools to prevent such incidents from happening again? Why is there no recommendation for parents/guardians to discuss the issue with their children? Why is there no follow-up with a conversation in the schools about this issue? Pointing to the policy that prohibits the bringing of weapons to schools is appropriate, but without some constructive action it does little more than seem to say, "Not our fault".
Restoring the writing mentor program "downwards" is important and a good fix. To make this a complete fix, however, upper grades should once again have access to writing mentors -- something this budget does not fix. The actual tax increase is considerably more than the advertised $172/average household as the Board has actively discussed imposing a utility tax that could add as much as $400 per household. Taken together, that's a $572 tax increase per "average" household. While to many Rye residents that's easily paid, to others, it's material. Also, the so-called Cuomo re-election checks will only cover the $172, not the Utility tax.
This election is your one and only real chance to make clear your opinion about the utility tax. IF you believe that the utility tax is a weasel way around constraining growth in taxation that is opaque, inefficient, and regressive, then you have to vote against the budget. That's the only way to force the Board to realize that Rye can't be suckered by a "tax cap compliant" budget slogan. And yes, the Board will come back with a better budget. They will have no choice but to do so.
I believe that there will also be a Golf Club commission budget meeting starting at 7pm tonight. Given the number of open questions about their budget, tonights session may be helpful in making Wendesday's review by the City Council a lot more productive.
@BOH - you must not have a dictionary available to you and / or not heard the City's legal counsel say that filling the seat is NOT required.
@BOH - While there are clear rules of succession at the Federal and State level and this includes the appointment of replacement representatives (look at Illinois for a recent, "successful" example of the process), just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And while the City Council "can", no one, including the anon BOH, have bothered to say why it is needed. It's not. So don't do it. And get on with really governing.
Sorry, but people who have been elected choosing additional people to join their ranks without voter input is far from democratic. But you know, given that @BOH won't use a real name, perhaps they're interested in being appointed to the council as opposed to elected by the voters. Bob Zahm (sorry about my name not coming through directly; something funky has changed with this web site)
The Council has yet to make the case for the necessity of filling Suzanna's seat in advance of the November election. And yet, we're seeing a lot of hoopla encouraging people to publicly apply. Why is this distraction necessary from the Council's work on the infrastructure bond, flooding, etc? And if an additional Council member is needed to vote on the 2013 budget, have the November winner take the seat immediately after the election instead of waiting until January. Having the Council pick someone to join the Council now, in advance of the election, seems frankly undemocratic.
I doubt that anyone has given direction "to ignore an Intersection with "9 lanes of Traffic" and no directionals!". This seems to more likely be a case of gaps in operational management. I believe that the City Council has not delved deeply enough into how the City is being run because they are willing to trust (remember that old refrain about "trust but verify"?) that the City Manager "knows what they want done". Effective verification is required to make the City Manager-style of government successful and that is what I think has been missing. At some point, this can become micro-managing, but all external appearances would indicate that our local government is nowhere near encountering that risk. is now following The Typepad Team
Dec 24, 2009