ForSomers.org Blog

The School Bond Issue

2005-10-08T08:09:00.000-04:00

For whatever reason, we have been asked over and over again to share our thoughts on the proposed expansion of Somers' schools and the upcoming $53 million capital facilities bond referendum. While initially quite reticent to offer up anything beyond our ongoing opposition to the controversial bus depot part of the proposal, we found ourselves engaging in conversations with friends, neighbors and complete strangers with increasing frequency, particularly as the issue has grown into an emotional 'hot button' in Somers; in fact, not since the last pool referendum has the town appeared to be quite so divided.

As the dialogue ensued, however, and our thoughts solidified it became very apparent that this entire issue could be best understood and indeed framed within the context of some of the same smart growth and planning principles that aided us in the Eagle River situation, and most certainly within the context of our stated aim of establishing "a protocol of responsible and responsive growth and planning" for our town and the surrounding region. Certainly overcrowding in our schools (and the subsequent strain on school facilities) is but one of the many effects of suburban sprawl with which communities like Somers must contend. How we deal with sprawl and its many consequences will ultimately define what type of community we truly have here in Somers.

And so, after weeks of agonizing capitulation, we find that in the final analysis we cannot support the school bond as it has been proposed. We feel that it is altogether too much, too late, and prepared with insufficient attention to the overall needs of the community at large.

We fault the Somers Central School District administration and the Board of Education (BOE) for exercising poor planning and even poorer judgment in preparing what we feel is an excessive rehabilitation project, one that goes far beyond its stated objectives. In a time of growing economic distress -- rising energy prices, a controversial and very expensive war, the largest budget deficit in our country's history, mounting fear of a collapse in home values, and other anticipated repercussions from the recent Gulf coast hurricanes -- a large capital facilities bond, loaded with expensive, non-essential "extras" is clearly not in everyone's best interest, including that of our children. That overcrowding in Somers schools -- really the core issue here -- should have and could have been properly anticipated, identified and dealt with in progressive, affordable steps years ago is perhaps the understatement of the decade. That the BOE failed to act presciently under the circumstances is truly remarkable.

One would have had to have followed the BOE's maladroit handling of several proposals it considered over the last few years to really comprehend our contention that poor planning is at issue here. Fortunately for the board, it would appear that the majority of those who so vocally and adamantly support the bond appear not to have paid much attention until only very recently.

Be that as it may, we distinctly recall hearing three members of this board proclaim loudly and quite passionately (in a distinct departure from their normally demure demeanor) that expanding and rehabilitating Somers existing schools would not be in the taxpayers best interests, that it would in fact be a "complete waste of money". Those words, which for us resonate as if they were spoken yesterday, were in fact uttered at a board meeting just under one year ago, on October 12, 2004, and were accepted unanimously by the board; they signaled the BOE's sudden departure from plans to add on to existing classrooms to purchasing land on which to build a new middle school. We all know what happened next -- the BOCES land acquisition deal that crumbled before their very eyes. Taxpayers in several participating communities sent a strong message to both BOCES and the Somers Central School District that they had not been sufficiently assimilated into the decision-making process, while local voters seemed also to be reacting to the high price tag ($71 million) associated with the sale.

But a discernible and disturbing pattern was emerging. We contend that both the board of education and the district administrators have become out of touch with the community they purport to serve, that despite the best of intentions and well meaning efforts on their part, their focus has been subverted by internal agendas that no longer resonate within the community at large. Increased enrollment and classroom overcrowding did not happen overnight in Somers; they occurred gradually over the last ten or fifteen years, the same period of time, coincidentally, that several BOE members have served on the board. Anyone living in Somers during that time could have told you how congested things were getting in town -- all the early signs of sprawl (traffic, congestion, overcrowding) were in full bloom. All one had to do was drive through any neighborhood in town (let alone any of the new subdivisions) to see the number of toddlers and infants being carried and 'strollered' along by new parents everywhere, pre-school children who would one day be enrolling in kindergarten classes at Primrose Elementary. It didn't require a math degree to calculate the progressive impact this would have on the school system as a whole (although it did ultimately require the hiring of a second demographer to set things straight for the BOE). That the district seemed to have been caught completely off guard by Somers' growth is quite troubling in and of itself.

We know that the Somers BOE is comprised of bright, dedicated, well-meaning individuals who volunteer their time unselfishly for a rather thankless job, and we have always had an enormous amount of respect for them. But as a group they have ultimately failed us in certain key areas. The board needs fresh blood (something they have been suspiciously reluctant to encourage), the imposition of term limits and much more input from concerned parents and other residents with demonstrated, applicable skills (especially in the areas of finance and planning). Concrete plans to deal with overcrowded classrooms, existing or forecasted -- once again, the real crux of the matter -- could have been commenced in stages years ago if the board had engaged in five- and ten-year comprehensive planning with the community, and the associated costs could then have been more readily accepted and absorbed by all. Turf fields, additional gymnasia, and improved outdoor lighting contribute to a great athletic program; along with a state-of-the-art auditorium and new practice areas they most definitely enhance the educational experience for our children. But they are options that Somers kids have never enjoyed, and very expensive options at that. They are certainly not germane to the issue of overcrowding, which many believe to be the single most pressing issue that needs to be addressed. Would our kids benefit from all the extras? Absolutely! Will they suffer if they cannot have them all at once? Hardly.

And then there is the matter of the bus depot. Would that someone on the board would have had the propensity to just admit that, "yes, the proposed facility will likely destroy several town-regulated wetlands (as opposed to the larger, state-regulated wetlands that surround it), but we consider them to be rather small and perhaps even somewhat isolated". But, no, we must first attempt to sneak our environmental impact study by anyone who might be watching; and then we must fall on the advice of our hired guns to deny any culpability and instead focus on stormwater management protocols that would be required under any circumstances and oh, by the way, the site is not even part of the town's groundwater overlay district (as if anyone ever said that it was). Bottom line: the proposal includes a $4 million bus facility (read: gas station), with parking for over 180 cars and buses, gasoline and diesel storage and fueling stations, etc., etc. that will involve some wetland incursion, destruction and mitigation -- and all for buses that the district does not even own. We don't think the buses should be anywhere near our children, let alone on top of or surrounded by wetlands, and we don't want to pay any part of its construction. Furthermore, the district's history with respect to environmental protection is spotty at best, the current bus depot and the intermediate school parking lot being prime examples.

Poor planning or lack of it has resulted in a no-compromise situation for many taxpayers and residents of Somers, who quite simply cannot afford the not-insignificant tax increases. And the uproar against them by those who support the bond has been very disturbing (and one of the ugliest consequences of sprawl, by the way). Instead of castigating senior citizens and others on fixed incomes -- something that is occurring with alarming frequency both publicly and privately in Somers -- we should be making attempts to take their thoughts and opinions into consideration, and to then adjust the bond accordingly. The token alterations made by the BOE do not go far enough, in our opinion, to properly address any of the concerns that have been raised. The reality of the situation is that tax increases won't stop at this bond (which, like every capital improvement project, will likely grow in size before it is completed), and subsequent school budgets will have to increase proportionately, along with costs associated with the new school the BOE still talks about building, the land on which it will be built, and so on. School taxes in New York state have increased at alarming rates in recent years -- yes, largely due to unfunded state mandates for medical and retirement benefits -- but as taxpayers we need to put the brakes on runaway spending (and we should probably start talking about tax reform). As has been the case in communities throughout the state this past year, we should use this referendum as a means to effecting positive change within our community.

We all want the best for our children, and for our friends' and neighbors' children as well. That our kids are currently paying the price for overcrowding in the schools is apparent; that something needs to be done to address this is quite obvious. A better plan can be constructed and implemented through cooperative, proactive planning on the part of the school district with the entire community, and not at the expense of any one segment of that community. Moreover, we need to instill in our children the awareness and belief that community does matter, and that sometimes temporary sacrifice guarantees more than immediate indulgence, a lesson that might serve them well throughout their entire lives.

Somers School Situation Redux

2005-05-27T12:13:00.000-04:00

The Board of Education (BOE) of the Somers Central School District (SCSD) hosted a Community Forum this past Tuesday evening (May 24th) to seek input from the public regarding a proposed $55 million expansion project for three of the four Somers public schools.

And public input they got.

A large crowd of concerned residents packed the Primrose School cafeteria, listened intently to a brief presentation from Russ Davidson, whose architectural firm had been hired by the Board to draw up the proposed expansion plans -- during which, it is important to note, specific costs related to the plans were revealed for the first time -- and voiced their opinions accordingly.

Ranging from genuine concerns about the overall cost of the proposal and how that might effect seniors and others on limited or fixed incomes, to questions concerning the large class sizes at Primrose Elementary school (which are not specifically addressed in the proposal, although the fact that the SCSD's recent move to new offices in Bailey Court frees up three classrooms at Primrose), to speeches about how necessary the proposed new auditorium at the Middle School and new gymnasium and athletic facilities at the High School really are, the discussion was lively and at times quite spirited.

Several residents (including yours truly) expressed their displeasure with what they termed the BOE's lack of planning and foresight, claiming that the current overcrowding issue could have been remedied earlier on if better planning had been exercised, and that the proposal now in front of Somers taxpayers provides no real options or alternatives. One resident pointed out that only last October the BOE had told taxpayers that renovation of the schools would be "a waste of taxpayers' dollars", and that building a new school was clearly the preferred course of action. But, she pointed out, the failed BOCES vote was only one of several botched attempts by the BOE to purchase an appropriate piece of property on which to build a new school. Gasps were audible in the room when she described how the 18-acre Supple property adjacent to the high school was offered to the Board for less than $900,000, summarily rejected because it was too expensive for taxpayers to handle and then purchased by a local developer a couple of years later for $500,000.

So, now we're faced with a $55 million construction bill, as well as the BOE's wish to pursue finding land for a new school (this time an elementary school, as that would require a smaller piece of property) and, not too far down the road, increased budgets to take care of all the new teachers (along with their salaries and benefits and retirement costs) that will be hired to fill all the new (and definitely much-needed) classrooms.

The proposed bond would add a total of 23 new classrooms (and other instructional rooms), thus going a long way towards alleviating projected overcrowding at both the high school and middle school. It also allows for four new classrooms at SIS, which is already overcrowded, but nothing for the elementary school, where small classroom size is particularly important.

And in that $55 million bill we'll find a new $5 million dollar auditorium at the middle school, a new $4 million dollar second gymnasium for the high school (along with approximately $6 million in new ball fields, exterior lighting, artificial turf, a dance studio, new lobbies and entrances, and so on) and last, but not least, a $4 million bus depot that will house 181 vehicles on 3.5 acres of impervious surface smack dab in the middle of a wetland adjacent to the high school (although the BOE would have us believe that there is not a wetland in sight!).

[Ed. Note: the detailed cost estimates and drawings are now available on the SCSD’s website,at http://www.somers.k12.ny.us]

No one can dispute that Somers’ schools are in dire need of expansion and rehabilitation, especially to remedy the serious overcrowding that permeates all four schools. Furthermore, the new athletic facilities proposed for the high school and the new auditorium at the middle school will surely enhance not only our childrens’ educational experience and opportunities, but be a boon to the community as a whole.

But we find the entire situation troubling for several reasons.

First, the fact that the overcrowding situation was not addressed earlier is of serious concern. No one on the Board of Education or in the administration can claim that they were blindsided by rising enrollment numbers. Despite the fact that their demographer’s reports failed to predict the gravity of this issue, signs pointing to it were evident everywhere in town. New housing subdivisions seemed to pop up with surprising frequency, traffic and congestion were epidemic, recreation facilities (many owned by the school district) stretched to capacity. Almost everyone acknowledges that the $20 million school bond in 1998 was a mere ‘band aid’ solution to a situation that has quickly evolved into a near crisis for Somers’ school children. Class sizes of 25-27 in kindergarten and above are simply unacceptable, and we feel that the BOE was negligent in not recognizing the need for more classrooms, especially after the decision to move to a full day kindergarten program clearly exacerbated the problem at Primrose Elementary School.

In her summation at the end of Tuesday night’s forum, superintendent Marien responded to criticism by pointing out that she had, both in her previous role as assistant superintendent and in her current position, worked diligently with the BOE to improve the curriculum offered to Somers’ school children. We find it ironic that their obvious diligence in this area -- while certainly commendable and much-needed, especially a decade ago – does not appear to have been accompanied by an urgent recognition of the fact that rising enrollment in the district should have been dealt with promptly, especially insofar as it could end up seriously undermining all their hard work in the curriculum area.

So as to prevent that type of inaction in the future, we recommend that the BOE engage interested members of the community in working with them on a five- and ten-year comprehensive school plan, one that would carefully analyze and prepare for a host of contingencies regarding future budgets, capital improvements, curricula, staffing, etc. In addition, we would like to suggest that the BOE look into hiring consultants on an ‘as needs’ basis to help them with specific issues with which they might require assistance. We would also like to see term limits imposed on board members’ service to the BOE, especially in light of the fact that at least three of its current members have served there since the early 90’s. A constant flow of new blood, fresh ideas and perhaps even more specific expertise would benefit the district and the community at large. Furthermore, the BOE should be much more aggressive in encouraging more active participation from parents and others in the community, particularly with respect to service on the board and the development of a comprehensive plan.

We are also very concerned about the new bus facility proposed for what we feel is an environmentally sensitive property behind the high school. That school districts in New York do not have to heed local regulations and ordinances is troubling enough; that our school district seems predisposed to so flagrantly ignoring the Town of Somers’ stated objectives with respect to water resource protection is deeply disturbing. In New York State as much as 94% of existing wetland regions are not afforded protection under the law, because the state currently regulates wetlands of 12.4 acres and larger. Most communities protect wetlands of only one acre in size or smaller – Somers included – but the schools can skirt those regulations. We have argued elsewhere that the plans for 3.5 acres of impervious surface, parking for 181 vehicles (buses, vans and automobiles), fueling and storage capabilities for gasoline and diesel, maintenance garage and office building involved in this $3.8 million project constitute nothing more than a glorified gas station! We’re willing to bet that Exxon or Texaco would never get permission to build a ‘real’ gas station on that specific property – why then should the SCSD be allowed to?

As one member of the audience pointed out on Tuesday, why are we even considering paying all that money to build a facility for buses we don’t own? And why would we want that facility adjacent to any of our schools, wetlands or not? These are excellent questions that deserve better answers.

Finally, we are struck by what is perhaps the ultimate irony of this entire situation. Most people who have chosen to live in Somers did so because of a combination of three things: (1) the semi-rural beauty of the Town and its surroundings; (2) the low tax base; and (3) the good school system. How incongruous then that all three now stand so jeopardized by our collective decision to move here! Suburban sprawl has insidiously crept into this entire region – and many others across the nation – threatening the very quality of life we have all worked so hard to achieve.

Organizations like ours have sprung up all over this country to promote slow growth, encourage better and ‘smarter’ planning practices and foster a stronger sense of urgency, responsibility and commitment on the part of local citizens and taxpayers. And, like us, many of these groups have made considerable progress and achieved wonderful successes, small and large.

Yet, if in the face of overdevelopment and sprawl, taxpayers demand even more amenities and services than local municipalities can reasonably offer, then the downward spiral will continue, taxes and housing prices will soar, valued members of the community will be forced to leave, and we will all be the poorer as a result.

Now is the time to give all of these issues serious contemplation. Get better informed, learn about the issues, and do your homework. Attend public meetings, ask questions and demand more from the men and women you elected. Then, decide for yourself what is truly important for yourself, for your children and for this community and act accordingly. And understand that your decisions will affect an entire community, for better or worse.

Announcing: Friends of the Angle Fly Preserve

2005-03-09T09:02:00.000-05:00

We are very proud to announce the formation of Friends of the Angle Fly Preserve, a non-profit citizens' organization dedicated to the care, protection, and public enjoyment of the natural spaces that make up the 654 acres of the Angle Fly Preserve in Somers (formerly known as the Eagle River property).

Activities will include trail layout, construction, and maintenance, as well as educational programs and public outreach. Additionally, the Friends will undertake fundraising and advocacy on behalf of the Preserve’s needs. In the near future, the Friends will apply for federal recognition as a charitable organization.

Whether you are a resident of Somers or not, we invite you to join the Friends and participate in the ongoing preservation and enjoyment of the Angle Fly Preserve!

If you'd like to join, please sign up today by clicking here.

Or, for more information, please contact Michael Barnhart at:
michael.g.barnhart@verizon.net
914-277-8267

For the Sake of Our Children (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.)

2005-03-01T12:59:00.000-05:00

[Ed. Note: The following article should be read by everyone -- regardless of political affiliation -- who has even the slightest interest in the environment. Please feel free to forward it to every person you know!].

For the Sake of Our Children

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

EarthLight Magazine #52, Winter 2005
URL: www.earthlight.org/2005/essay52_kennedy_pff.htm

I have been an environmental advocate for twenty years, and I’ve been disciplined during that period about being nonpartisan in my approach to this issue. The worst thing that can happen to the environment is if it becomes the province of a single political party. Most of the environmental leaders in our country agree with me. Five years ago, if you asked the leaders of the major environmental groups in America, What’s the gravest threat to the global environment?, they would have given you a range of answers: overpopulation, habitat destruction, global warming. Today, they will all tell you one thing: it’s George W. Bush. This is the worst environmental president that we have ever had. You simply cannot speak honestly about the environment in any context today without speaking critically about this president. If you go to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s web site you will see over 400 major environmental rollbacks that have been promoted by this administration over the last three and half years. It is a concerted, deliberate attempt to eviscerate thirty years of environmental law. It is a stealth attack, one that’s been hidden from the public.

We found, in 2003, a memo from Frank Luntz, the president’s pollster, to the president saying that if you go through with the evisceration of America’s environmental law, you are going to alienate not just Democrats but the Republican rank and file. Eighty-one percent in both parties want clean air, they want stronger environmental laws and they want them strictly enforced. Luntz said that to the president, and he said, if we do this we have to do a stealth attack. He recommended using Orwellian rhetoric to mask this radical agenda: They want to destroy the forest, they call it the Healthy Forest Act, they want to destroy the air they call it the Clear Skies Act. Most insidiously, they have installed the worst, most irresponsible polluters in America, and the lobbyists from those companies, as the heads of virtually all the agencies and sub-secretariats and even Cabinet positions that regulate or oversee our environment. The head of the Forest Service is a timber industry lobbyist who is probably the most rapacious timber industry lobbyist in American history. The head of public lands is a mining industry lobbyist who believes that public lands are unconstitutional. The head of the Air Division at the EPA is a utility lobbyist who has represented the worst polluters in America for twenty years. The head of Superfund is a woman whose former job was advising companies how to evade Superfund. The second in command of EPA is a Monsanto lobbyist—these are not exceptions, these are the rules across the agencies. I think it’s a good idea to bring business people into government, to bring that experience and expertise. These individuals did not enter government service for the purpose of promoting the public interest, but in each of these cases, rather to subvert the very laws that they are now charged with enforcing. We are seeing the impacts of this already. This year, for the first year on record, the EPA announced that the dead zone in Lake Erie—you remember Lake Erie was declared dead prior to Earth Day 1970—is growing. Our water in this country, according to EPA, is getting dirty for the first time since the Clean Water Act was passed.

The rollbacks from the Bush administration have affected the lives of millions and millions of Americans adversely. Consider just one industry: the coal-burning utilities. One out of every four black children in New York now has asthma. I have three sons who have asthma. We don’t know why we have this epidemic of pediatric asthma, but we do know that asthma attacks are caused primarily by two components of air pollution: ozone and particulates. In the Los Angeles Times recently there was a description of a study that’s about to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine that shows that even small amounts of ozone pollution do permanent damage to children’s lungs. In San Bernardino, for example, ten percent of the children have lungs that are permanently damaged, that will never recover; and that lung injury precipitates in human beings a whole host of other diseases throughout their lifetime.

We know that the principal source of ozone and particulates in our air is coming from 1,100 coal-burning power plants that are burning coal illegally. They were supposed to install controls over fifteen years ago. The Clinton administration was prosecuting 75 of the worst of those plants. But this industry gave $48 million to President Bush during the 2000 campaign, and they’ve contributed $58 million since. One of the first things that President Bush did when he came to office was to order the Justice Department to drop all 75 of those suits. The Justice Department lawyers were shocked. This has never happened in our history before, where somebody running as a presidential candidate accepts money from a criminal and then lets that criminal off the hook. Many of you remember what happened when President Clinton pardoned Mark Rich and how indignant the press and the public was at that action. But Mark Rich was one person, and he never killed anybody. According to EPA, these 75 plants, just the criminal exceedences from these plants, kill 5,500 Americans every year. After letting these criminals off the hook, the president then went and rewrote the Clean Air Act, illegally we believe. We’re suing him, we’ll win the suit, but it may take ten years, and in the meantime they’ll discharge what they want.

I live in New York State. Most of the fish in New York are now unsafe to eat from mercury contamination. I live two miles from the state of Connecticut; in Connecticut every freshwater fish is now unsafe to eat. Last week, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that in 19 states it is unsafe to regularly eat any freshwater fish, and in 48 states at least some fish are unsafe to eat. The mercury is coming, largely, from those same 1,100 coal-burning power plants. We know a lot about mercury that we didn’t know five or ten years ago. We know that one out of every six American women of childbearing years now has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases: cognitive impairment; mental retardation; autism; blindness; kidney, liver or heart disease. I have so much mercury in my body, I was told by Dr. David Carpenter, who is the national authority on mercury contamination, that if I were a woman of childbearing years and produced a child, that the child would have cognitive impairment, and, he estimated, a permanent IQ loss of five to seven points. There are 630,000 children born in this country every year who have been exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb.

Recognizing this threat to the American public, the Clinton administration reclassified mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act; that triggered the requirement that those companies remove 90 percent of that mercury within three and a half years. It would have cost, according to EPA, less than one percent of the revenues of those plants for them to do that. That’s a great deal for the American people, but it’s still billions of dollars for that industry. Eight weeks ago, Bush announced that he was scrapping the Clinton-era rules and substituting, instead, rules that were written by the industry’s lobbying firm Latham and Watkins. On their face, they say that they have to clean up, within fifteen years, 50 percent of the mercury. But they’ve woven so many loopholes into the new rule that they will literally never have to clean up. The chief lobbyist for the firm who wrote it is now the head of the Air Division at EPA.

We are living today in a science fiction nightmare, a world where, because somebody gave money to a politician, our children are brought into a world where the air is too poisonous for them to breathe. This is a world where, because somebody gave money to a politician, my children and the children of millions of other Americans can no longer enjoy the seminal, primal activities of their youth—which is to go fishing with their father or mother and come home and eat the fish. I live two hours south of the Adirondack Mountains. This is the oldest protected wilderness area on the face of the Earth; it’s been protected since the 1880s. Today, one-fifth of the lakes in the Adirondacks are sterilized from acid rain which is coming from those same coal-burning power plants, and this president has put the brakes on the statutory requirement that those companies remove the materials that are causing the acid rain.

I flew recently over the coalfields of the Appalachians. I saw something that if the American people could see there would be a revolution in this country. We are cutting down the mountains, literally cutting them down. The coal companies blow off the tops of the mountains, using 2,500 tons of dynamite in West Virginia alone every year. They fire the workers: When my father was fighting strip mining in West Virginia in 1968 there were 114,000 coal miners digging coal out of West Virginia. He told me that strip mining was not only going to destroy the economy of West Virginia in the long term but it was designed to destroy the jobs so that they didn’t have to employ union labor. Now, there are only 12,000 miners left to get the same amount of coal. They do it by blowing off the tops of the mountains, and they take that rubble and they dump it into the adjacent river valley. They’ve already covered up 1,200 miles of our streams. We are destroying, flattening this landscape that is a part of American history. It’s the source of our values, our virtues, our character as a people; the landscapes, the mountains where Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone roamed, and we are cutting them to the ground. Of course it’s illegal, you cannot take rubble and debris and toxic waste and dump it into a river without a Clean Water Act permit, and the Clean Water Act could never let you get a permit to do that. So we sued. Joe Lovett, the attorney from West Virginia, sued the Bush administration and the Army Corps of Engineers for allowing this practice to happen. We won the lawsuit, and the judge enjoined all mountain top mining. Two days from that victory, the Bush administration rewrote the Clean Water Act to allow mountain top mining to continue forever; not only that, but changed the structure of the act so that anybody can dump rubble and debris simply by getting a rubber stamp permit from the Corps of Engineers.

If you ask the people in the White House who are promoting this legislation, Why are you doing this?, what they’ll say is: We have to choose between economic prosperity and environmental protection—that is a false choice. In 100 percent of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy. We want to measure our economy based upon how it produces jobs and how it preserves the value of the assets of our community. If, on the other hand, we want to do what the Bush administration has been urging us to do, which is to treat the planet as if it were a business in liquidation, to convert our natural resources to cash as quickly as possible, to have a few years of pollution-based prosperity, we can generate an instantaneous cash flow and the illusion of a prosperous economy. But our children are going to pay for our joy ride. They are going to pay for it with denuded landscapes and poor health and huge cleanup costs that are going to amplify over time and that they are never going to be able to pay. Environmental injury is deficit spending. It’s a way of loading the costs of our generation’s prosperity onto the backs of our children.

There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. The free market spawns efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste. Waste is pollution, so in a true free-market economy you would eliminate, as nearly as you can, pollution. In a true free-market economy you can’t make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community. Polluters make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by escaping the discipline of the free market and forcing the public to pay their production cost. You show me a polluter, I’ll show you a subsidy. Corporations are externalizing machines; they are constantly trying to figure out a way to avoid their own costs and foist it out on the public.

I’ll give you an example. When the coal companies, the utilities, discharge mercury into the air they are avoiding one of the costs of bringing their products to market, which is the cost of properly disposing of a dangerous processed chemical. When they avoid the costs they can out-compete their competitors, they can out-compete gas and oil and wind power. But the costs don’t disappear. They go into the fish, they make children sick, they permanently injure children’s lungs, they put people out of work, they acidify the lakes in the Adirondacks and they’ve destroyed the forest cover of the Appalachian Mountains all the way from Georgia up into Quebec. Those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that should be reflected in the price of that product. All of the federal environmental laws are meant to restore free-market capitalism in America. I don’t even consider myself an environmentalist anymore. I’m a free marketeer. I go out into the marketplace, I track down the polluters and I say to them, We are going to force you to internalize your costs the same way that you’re internalizing your profits. Americans have to understand that there is a huge difference between free-market capitalism which democratizes our country, that brings us prosperity and efficiency, and the kind of corporate crony capitalism which is as antithetical to democracy in America as it is in Nigeria.

I work a lot with farmers trying to fight industrial hog meat production, which is not only one of the primary threats to the American environment but also one of the primary threats to the American worker. It’s allowing a few monopolies to control our food supply and to put farmers out of business. Fifteen years ago there were 27,000 independent hog farmers in North Carolina, today there are none. They have been replaced completely by 2,200 hog factories, 1,600 owned or controlled by Smithfield Foods, one large corporation. They produce such huge amounts of waste they have to dispose of it illegally, and so they have to corrupt political officials in order to continue operating.

I gave a speech a group of 1,200 farmers in Clear Lake, Iowa, and I said that I am more frightened of these large multinationals than I am of Osama bin Laden. I got a standing ovation from all the farmers in the room, but I got six months of abuse from the farm bureau. I stand by what I said. It’s the same thing that Teddy Roosevelt said, that our country was too strong and too committed to ever be destroyed by a foreign enemy, but our democratic institutions would be subverted by what he called "malefactors of great wealth," who would destroy them from within. Another great Republican, Abraham Lincoln, during the heat of the Civil War in 1863, said, I have the South in front of me, and the bankers behind me and for my country, I fear the bankers more.

From the beginning of American history our greatest political leaders—Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and Andrew Jackson—have warned America against allowing large corporations to dominate our political systems and our lives. Another Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, the most famous speech he made was warning America against the domination by the military-industrial complex. Franklin Roosevelt said that the domination of our nation by large corporations is the definition of fascism. I have an American Heritage Dictionary, and the definition, if you look up fascism, says, "the domination of government by large corporations driven by right-wing ideology and bellicose nationalism"—that’s getting to look pretty familiar. The problem with letting large corporations dominate our government is that it erodes democracy, it erodes our capacity to participate in public life, our capacity for dignity, and it allows these entities to squander resources that belong to our children. But the thing that we’ve squandered worst of all is our natural heritage: the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the wildlife, the lands—all these things that make us proud to be American. This administration has taken the conserve out of conservatism. They claim to like the free market, but what they are really embracing is corporate welfare capitalism, socialism for the rich. They claim to love property rights, but only when it’s the right of a polluter to use his property to destroy his neighbor’s property or to destroy the public property. They claim to like law and order, but they are the first ones to let the large corporations and their corporate contributors violate the law at public expense. They claim to love local control and states’ rights, but it’s only in those instances when they’re taking down the barriers to large corporations.

They claim to embrace Christianity while violating the manifold mandates of Christianity: that we are stewards of the land, and that we are meant to care for nature. They have embraced this Christian heresy of dominion theology, which James Watt was the first to enunciate when he told the Senate, I don’t think that there is any point in protecting the public lands because we don’t how long the world is going to last before the Lord returns. The woman he mentored for twenty years, Gale Norton, is running the Department of the Interior.

The reason that we protect nature is because it enriches us. It enriches us economically, yes, the base of our economy, and we ignore that at our peril. But it also enriches us aesthetically and recreationally, culturally and historically, and spiritually. Human beings have other appetites besides money, and if we don’t feed them we’re not going to become the kind of beings that our Creator intended. When we destroy nature we impoverish ourselves, we diminish ourselves and we impoverish our children. We’re not protecting those ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest, as Rush Limbaugh loves to say, for the sake of a spotted owl. We are protecting those forests because we believe that the trees have more value to humanity standing than they would have if we cut them down. I’m not fighting for the Hudson for the sake of the shad or the sturgeon or the stripped bass but because I believe my life will be richer; my children, my community will be richer if we live in a world where there are shad and sturgeon and striped bass in the Hudson. Commercial fishing on the Hudson is 350 years old. Many of these people come from Dutch families that learned the same fishing methods that they’re using today from the Algonquin Indians during the Dutch colonial period. I want my children to be able to touch them when they come to shore to repair their nets or wait out the tides, and in doing that, connect themselves to New York history and understand that they are part of something larger than themselves. I don’t want my children to grow up in a world where it’s all Unilever and 400-ton factory trolleys 100 miles offshore strip mining the ocean with no interface with humanity, and where we have no family farmers left in America; where we’ve driven the final nail into the coffin of Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an American democracy rooted in tens of thousands of freeholds owned by family farmers, each with a stake in our democracy. I don’t want a world where we’ve lost touch with the seasons and the tides and the things that connect us to the ten thousand generations of human beings that were here before there were laptops, and that connect us ultimately to God.

I don’t believe that nature is God or that we ought to be worshiping it as God, but I do believe that it’s the way that God talks to us most clearly. God talks to human beings through many vectors: through each other, through organized religion, through the great books of those religions, through wise people, through art, literature, music and poetry—but nowhere with such clarity, texture, grace and joy as through Creation. We don’t know Michelangelo by looking at his biography, we know him by looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. We know our Creator best by studying Creation, which all of the religious texts mandate us to do. If you look at all of the great, central epiphany in every religious tradition in mankind’s history, the revelation always occurs in the wilderness. Buddha had to go into the wilderness to experience self-realization. Mohamed had to go to the wilderness of Mount Hira in 629 and wrestle an angel in the middle of the night to have the Koran squeezed out of him. Moses had to go onto the wilderness of Mount Sinai to get the Commandments. The Jews had to spend 40 years in the wilderness to purge themselves of the 400 years of slavery in Egypt. Christ had to spend 40 days in the wilderness to discover his divinity. His mentor was John the Baptist, a man of the wilderness who lived in a cave in the Jordan Valley and dressed in the skins of wild animals.

All of Christ’s parables are taken from nature: I am the vine; you are the branch; The Mustard Seed; the little swallows the scattering, the seeds on fallow ground. He called himself a fisherman, a farmer, a vineyard keeper, a shepherd. That’s how he stayed in touch with the people. He was saying things to them that contradicted everything that they had heard from the literate, sophisticated people of their time. They would have dismissed him as a quack but they were able to confirm the wisdom of his parables about the fishes and the birds through their own observations of the natural world. They were able to say: He’s not telling us something new, he’s simply illuminating something that’s very, very old.

When we destroy these things, we’re cutting ourselves off from the very things that make us human, that give us a spiritual life. And for these people on Capitol Hill to be saying that they are following the mandate of Christ by liquidating our public assets—what they are really doing is a moral affront to the next generation. That’s why we preserve nature. Not for our sake, but for the sake of the future. That obligation is expressed by the term sustainability. All that word means is that God wants us to use the things we’ve been given, to enrich ourselves, to improve our quality of life, to serve others—but we can’t use them up. We can’t sell the farm piece by piece in order to pay for the groceries; we can’t drain the pond to catch the fish. We can’t cut down the mountain to get at the coal. We can live off the interest; we can’t go into the capital that belongs to our children.

In Somers, An Investment For Everyone

2005-02-22T10:48:00.000-05:00

[Ed. Note: Please note that quotes attributed to ForSomers.org in the following article were
actually taken from a document produced by the Town of Somers, and correctly identified as such on our website.]

THE NEW YORK TIMES, Sunday February 20, 2005 [Westchester Section]

In Somers, An Investment for Everyone
A Partnership of Minds and Money Finds a Way to Save Open Space Land
By Elsa Brenner

The joint acquisition of more than a square mile of undeveloped land in Somers, one of the largest remaining parcels of privately owned open space in the county, appears to be a victory for everybody, and here is why.

New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which is paying $9.4 million of the $20.5 million cost to save the land in the heart of the Croton Watershed, gets a way to protect wetlands feeding into the drinking water supply of 9 million people.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, a $3.2 million partner, gains a rare opportunity to save open space in one of the most densely populated areas of the state.

For Somers, the initiator of the collective preservation project and a $4 million partner in it, paying what the parties called a fair market value for the real estate is far better than allowing 108 homes to go up there, a proposal that it has until now had to contend with.

At least, "fair price” is the term used by Henry Hocherman, a White Plains lawyer for the development company that is selling the land.

And while Westchester officials are always pleased to see more open space set aside, in this case there is another bonus in it for them. In exchange for Westchester's $4 million, Somers has agreed to contribute more below-market-value housing to the county's limited stock.

In addition to selling the 653 acres for a market price, the partners in Eaglet, a limited partnership development company from Rego Park in Queens, also avoid what Mary Beth Murphy, the town's supervisor, predicted would have been a prolonged, contentious and expensive zoning battle to get the housing project approved.

For environmentalists like Paul Gallay, the executive director of the nonprofit Westchester Land Trust in Bedford, the acquisition preserves the last brown trout-spawning stream in Westchester. It also saves surrounding land that is home to bobcats and red-shouldered hawks, among other species. Eight months ago, at the request of the town, Mr. Gallay began to assemble the parties in the deal for acquiring the property. He said the complex agreement represents "a huge undertaking that the town could not have done it on its own."

Ms. Murphy, the town supervisor, agreed, saying that at the very least, Somers could not have come up with the $20.5 million on its own.

Under the terms of the deal, the land will be used for recreation activities like hiking that do not disturb the environment, with the county and town jointly owning 370 acres in the eastern and central sections of the property, and New York City owning 269 acres in the western section. Ms. Murphy said the property's name would change from Eagle River to Angle Fly Preserve, after the trout-spawning stream that runs through the center of the land.

In 1999, Somers raised its minimum lot size from one and two acres to two and three acres for residential areas. Ms. Murphy said at the time that the town was not antidevelopment but wanted growth to happen slowly so that the town's roads, schools and other services would not be overwhelmed.

A year later, after the town also adopted a referendum to set aside funds for open space, a 12-member appointed committee prioritized the 653-acre site "as one of its special causes," Ms. Murphy said.

"The property has always been on the chopping block in terms of development," she explained, noting that in the 1980's, another developer planned to build 1,200 condominiums of the property, but "fortunately, he went bankrupt."

Threatened with the latest plans for luxury homes, the potential government partners in the land acquisition walked the property last spring to assess its value to them. "Our socks were knocked off by what we saw," Ms. Murphy said of the property, which includes 280 acres of wetlands and 150 acres of hillsides and slopes.

At the end of the walk, she said, the various parties shared an al fresco lunch on a table set with linens and flowers next to the property and began hammering out the details.

"We agreed the owners had to get their money," Ms. Murphy said. "And the property isn't being stolen from them, but the alternative for the developers would have been a very arduous zoning process and not a whole lot of good feelings from residents."

Although there are still contracts to be signed and title reports to review, the agreement is expected to be formalized later this year. The County Board of Legislators must also approve Westchester's contribution.

According to ForSomers.org, a nonpartisan group of residents formed in 2003 to thwart the proposed Eagle River housing development, the purchase "represents a major step in protecting the town's environment, its water and open spaces, as well as limiting overall development pressure on its schools, roads and recreational facilities." About 50 of the luxury homes were to be located on the western third of the property, near the Muscoot Reservoir.
-
"Without this purchase, the town faced the imminent construction of a sprawling subdivision," the group says on its Web site, where it estimates the average cost per household in Somers at about $28 a year in increased taxes.

Under the terms of the deal, the operation and maintenance of the 370-acre county-town portion will become the responsibility of Somers, as will a separate 15-acre parcel that the town will own. Also, the town will assume ownership and responsibilities for two county roads on the land. Trailways on the site will link to nearby Muscoot and Lasdon County Parks.

Eagle River: Facts and Questions

2005-02-04T08:33:00.000-05:00

Eagle River: Facts and Questions [source: Somers Town Board, 2/03/05]

Eagle River-Basic Facts

Purchase of the "Eagle River" property is now moving towards the final stage. The buyers - the Town of Somers, Westchester County, New York City, and the State of New York - are very close to a contract with the developers, ICC Bridgeport LP/Eagle River LP. The resulting deal will ensure the protection of the entire 654-acre parcel from future development in a manner consistent with the "end-use plan" developed by the Town.

The only use of the property other than as open-space for passive recreation, hiking trails and the like, will be as a possible site for a Town community center and one or two ball fields. A community center could be built within a 15-acre section of the property reserved specifically for such use and owned by the Town of Somers.

Westchester County and the Town will jointly own the eastern and central sections of the property, aside from the Town-owned site, comprising a total of 370 acres. New York City, through its Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will own the western section of the property, approximately 269 acres.

All areas other than the Town's 15-acre parcel will be protected as permanent open space with access for passive recreation.

The Town will administer those areas held jointly with Westchester County but allow access to all Westchester County residents for use of hiking trails and other passive recreational facilities. The Town and County aim to eventually connect these trails with Lasdon's and perhaps Muscoot, thus creating a nature-trail system throughout the central area of Somers.

In sum, the major result of all this is that Somers residents will never have to face another development proposal on this scenic and environmentally sensitive property at the same time gaining recreational access to it in perpetuity.

Eagle River-FAQs

Why is Somers doing this?

· This project is one piece in the overall effort to protect and enhance Somers' semi-rural and community character, our basic quality of life.

Purchasing Eagle River represents a major step in protecting the Town's environment, its water and open spaces, as well as limiting overall development pressure on its schools, roads, and recreational facilities. Eagle River represented one of Somers' last remaining unprotected environmental treasures.

· Without this purchase, the Town faced the imminent construction of a sprawling subdivision.

A 108-home, over 600 acre, subdivision represented the latest threat to this parcel. It would have seriously impacted our already overcrowded schools and roads, not to mention the loss of the unbroken forested ridges and streams that buffer so much of the very heart of the Town. The character of the historic Primrose road corridor and Mt. Zion neighborhood would have been severely and irretrievably altered, as would the scenic vistas from Reis Park, Primrose Street, Van Rensselaer Road, and Route 35.

How much is this going to cost the average Somers homeowner?

· The Town will be obligated for $ 4million towards the entire $20.5 million purchase price.

Somers will bond for an amount roughly double what Somers voters approved in our 2000 open-space referendum. At current rates, that will represent approximately $28 per year in increased taxes for the average household over the life of the bond.

How is this being paid for?

· The deal to buy Eagle River is extremely complex but comes down to all four buyers - the Town, City, County, and State - shouldering a portion of the cost.

The property is being bought for $20.5 million, plus closing costs and initial management expenses, by the Town of Somers (which is contributing $4 million to $4.1 million), New York City (which is contributing $9.422 million, plus closing costs) and the County of Westchester (which is contributing $4 million to $4.05 million, with New York State purchasing a conservation easement (contributing $3.2 million plus closing costs). The property will become a nature preserve and public park, known as the Angle Fly Preserve.

What am I getting for all this money?

· The Town is leveraging its money in such a way that it is obtaining 654 acres of open-space protection and passive recreational opportunity for $4.1 million, an enormous bargain in today's real-estate market.

Essentially, Somers residents will be the prime beneficiaries of this entire open-space purchase. The Town is also taking title to a 15-acre parcel that includes the Reynold's farmhouse and the site of the Primrose Farms condominiums in order to protect the historic farmhouse and provide space for a possible community center and a ball field.

· The Town will also co-own and manage roughly 430 acres.

The central and eastern sections of the property will be owned by both Somers and Westchester County but managed by the Town. They will be reserved for hiking and nature trails with an additional buffer of 269 acres owned by the DEP and preserved as open space. An additional benefit is that the DEP will continue to pay property taxes on its portion of the land. With access to all this land, the Town will also be able to finally complete a trail system linking Muscoot, Lasdon, Reis Park, the Mahopac Branch railroad trail, and eventually perhaps, Somers hamlet thus providing residents with tremendously improved passive recreational opportunities.

· Lastly, not only are Somers residents gaining unparalleled amounts of open-space, but all that goes with that in terms of relief from traffic and schools congestion, as well as the preservation of community character.

Aren't there conditions attached by other partners? What am I giving up?

· The State of New York is obtaining a conservation easement on a sizable chunk of the property, which essentially ensures that those areas can never be built on. · The City will retain title on the Western section as a watershed buffer; again ensuring the land remains forever undeveloped in any way.

All lands will be accessible for passive use - nature and hiking trails. County residents will have access to those areas held jointly with the Town of Somers, areas that will be for hiking or other passive use.

· Additionally, the County will require that Somers make good faith efforts in implementing a plan for 188 units of affordable housing.

This is the same requirement that Lewisboro and other towns that have received County money have agreed to. The plan is to be worked out by Somers and represents essentially a commitment the Town has already made to affordable housing. The Town would be responsible for determining how such a plan is implemented and where such housing is located.

It is important to recognize though in regard to this last issue that Somers faces no "quota" in regard to affordable housing, nor any other "mandate" to build or locate such housing on any specific property in some specific amount. There will be no housing of any kind, affordable or otherwise, constructed on the Eagle River property.

Won't Somers be losing a lot of potential tax revenue?

· If developed, Eagle River would have placed an enormous burden on Somers schools, roads, water quality, and overall community character, costs that would have been shouldered by Somers taxpayers offsetting any gains in terms of Town revenue.

Yes, it is true that the Town will be foregoing such future revenue. [Ed. Note: the New York City DEP will continue to pay property taxes on the 269 acres it will own as part of the deal]. However, it is typically the case that such developments cost more than they pay in tax revenue. This development would have required increased policing, fire protection, road maintenance. It would have placed a significant burden on Somers' schools and forever altered the character of this most historic and rural section of the town.

What assurances do we have that the land will remain protected?

The Eagle River property, aside from the possible construction of a community center and ballfield or two on the Town's 15-acre parcel, will not be developed in any way. Such development will be forbidden by the terms of the agreements and the resulting conservation easements that will surround the purchase. These terms will be legally binding and in perpetuity.

This document was prepared for the Somers Town Board by the Somers Open Space Committee Co-chair Michael Barnhart.

Eagle River Land Deal Costs $20.5 Million

2005-02-01T13:41:00.000-05:00

Land deal costs $20.5 million

By ROB RYSER
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: February 1, 2005)

SOMERS — The planned sale of 653 acres of woods and wetlands from a developer to a group of government entities represents a $20.5 million deal, the sides confirmed yesterday, as details of the historic agreement began to emerge.

"This is probably the largest and most important unprotected piece of property left in Westchester County," said Paul Gallay, executive director of the Westchester Land Trust, a nonprofit group in Bedford Hills that brokered the agreement on the land known as Eagle River. "When you find a property this large and this unfragmented, you have one of the last opportunities to protect a scenic resource and habitat for wildlife that the county has been losing for years."

Gallay's enthusiasm for the deal, which could take as long as a year to close, was echoed yesterday by representatives of the funding partners. They are the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, which would spend about $9.4 million; the town of Somers and Westchester County, which would each spend about $4 million; and the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which would spend about $3.2 million.

"It's extraordinary just from the perspective of what it will mean for Somers in the long run," Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy said. "It really gives us the chance to hold on to our character."

The land, which had been approved three decades ago for 1,200 housing units, was under development pressure from a group of Queens investors who wanted to put 108 mansions there. More than 50 of those luxury homes were planned on the western third of the property, closest to the Muscoot Reservoir and New York City's drinking water system, which supplies 9 million people.

"It is a very large property in a very sensitive drainage basin," said DEP spokesman Ian Michaels, whose agency would buy 269 of the acres outright, with the goal of opening them to the public. "The Croton Reservoir system is the most impacted by development and the system where the real estate prices are the highest, so it is nice to be able to work with everyone on such a large parcel."

Under the deal, which will be the subject of a special informational hearing in Somers on Feb. 10, the town would keep 15 acres and pursue long-awaited plans to build a recreation center.

The rest of the land, some 369 acres, would be co-owned by Westchester County and the town, and managed by the town. As part of the agreement, the town would adopt a plan to provide more affordable housing, including measures such as relaxing restrictions on accessory apartment approvals, and requiring affordable homes as part of major new developments.

The county money, which comes from County Executive Andrew Spano's Legacy Program, has to be approved by the Board of Legislators.

County Legislator Michael Kaplowitz, D-Somers, the chairman of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, called the deal an "incomparable opportunity."

Although a contract has not been signed, Murphy expressed confidence that the deal would close. The developer's lawyer, Henry Hocherman, shared her optimism.

The sale represents the most money the county and DEP have spent on an open-space acquisition to protect the Croton system.

At some point, Murphy said, the property's name would change from Eagle River to Angle Fly Preserve, after the trout-spawning stream that runs through the center of the land.

"The developers are pleased that the property will be preserved in this way, as, frankly, I am," Hocherman said.

Eagle River Deal "Nearly Done"

2005-01-22T08:25:00.000-05:00

Deal called nearly done

By ROB RYSER, THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: January 20, 2005)

SOMERS — Terms of a historic agreement are nearly complete between Queens investors who have been trying to develop 628 acres with 108 mansions and local government officials who have been trying to preserve the largest remaining tract of land left in Westchester County.

"I would say we are very close," Westchester County Planning Commissioner Gerard Mulligan said yesterday. He would not say how much the deal was worth or how much money the county was prepared to contribute, except that it would represent the largest payment the county has ever made to preserve open space.

Similarly for another partner in the coalition of buyers — the New York City Department of Environmental Protection — the purchase of the so-called Eagle River property would represent its largest acquisition of open space east of the Hudson River.

The stakes are perhaps highest in the small northern Westchester town itself, still considered semi-rural, where residents feel besieged by development.

"I have been following this the way I think most people have in Somers," Somers resident Lydia Howie said of the town's unlikely effort to buy the land out of the developer's hands. "It is a wonderful example of how town and county and state government can get together for the betterment of a community. I think this will be very well received in town."

Under the deal, Somers, Westchester County, the DEP and New York state would each pay a share towards the purchase of the property, which would be managed as a park by Somers, Mulligan said.

The rugged, forested land runs from the southern bend of the Amawalk Reservoir as far east as Route 100. Its environmental resume includes the Angle Fly Brook — the only trout-spawning stream in Westchester County — and a watershed that feeds New York City's Muscoot Reservoir.

From a developer's standpoint, the land has great potential, having once been approved in 1975 for 1,200 units.

The deal could leave Somers the option to build a community center near the small portion of the property where several model homes were built from a project that was abandoned decades ago. But for the most part, the 628 acres would be preserved through a conservation easement, a legal agreement that prohibits development regardless of ownership changes.

"We actually insisted on that because we thought that if the property is going to be sold for conservation, it should be conserved," said Mount Kisco lawyer Henry Hocherman, who has represented the investors both as their attorney during the subdivision application and the acquisition negotiations.

"Both sides worked very hard," Hocherman said. "If the deal is signed as it is proposed, it is a fair deal for both sides."

Hocherman also declined to discuss a purchase price. Last January, when Somers Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy first announced that the town would build a coalition and attempt to buy Eagle River, a town politician put the value at $27 million.
Since then, independent appraisers hired by the developer and by the Westchester Land Trust have given private estimates to the negotiators.

The purchase price will become public once it reaches the Westchester County Board of Legislators for approval, which is not expected to happen until the beginning of February.

The board would have to approve both the language in a new agreement between the county and Somers, and the money that would have to be bonded to pay the county's share.

The most the county has paid to preserve open space is $3.6 million in 2003 to protect the former Unification Church property and an adjoining estate in Tarrytown.
"This kind of a deal is not unprecedented, but it is impressive because of its size and the financial ramifications," said Legislator Michael Kaplowitz, D-Somers, the chairman of the Budget and Appropriations Committee. "I can't wait until this hits our agenda."

2004-12-24T11:04:00.000-05:00

Season's Greetings from ForSomers.org!

A Towering Predicament

2004-11-07T21:00:00.000-05:00

[Ed. note: the following is a letter I wrote to the Town of Somers Master Plan Review Committee recently, regarding an issue that I believe will be rearing its ugly head more frequently in the not-too-distant future].

October 27, 2004

Mr. William F. Kehoe
Mr. John Del Bene
Co-Chairs, Somers Master Plan Committee
Members of the Somers Master Plan Committee
Somers Town House
335 Route 202
Somers, NY 10589

Dear Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Del Bene, and Members of the Somers Master Plan Committee:

I am writing to you today to bring to your attention a matter that I believe may have grave consequences for the Town of Somers and, as such, may warrant further consideration by the Somers Master Plan Committee (SMPC): that is the issue of cell tower siting.

Recently, ForSomers.org was asked to assist several residents in the Orchard Hill Road neighborhood of Somers after a request was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Sprint/PCS for a variance in order to site a cell tower on private property nearby. After researching the issue, and reading the Town’s new ordinance[i], we are concerned that a proliferation of cell towers within the boundaries of the Town of Somers and beyond is not only a distinct possibility, but will most certainly have serious implications for the residents of our Town, as well as for the cultural and scenic landscape of the entire region.

A bit of background information may be in order here.

The use of cell phones in this country has increased dramatically in the last decade, especially since 1996 when the federal government introduced the Telecommunications Act (TA), which, among other things, spurred a tremendous amount of investment funding into the cell phone industry and required telecommunications companies to dramatically enhance cellular service in this country. Prior to 1996, cell phone usage in the U.S. was relatively small; studies indicate that today over 46% of the U.S. population – roughly 155 million people -- now own and regularly use cell phones.[ii] Furthermore, the number of cell towers has also risen in direct proportion to cell phone usage: in 1996 there were approximately 25,000 cell tower sites in the U.S., while today there are well over 165,000.[iii]

Yet another and somewhat more unfortunate byproduct of the TA has been the rising number of lawsuits, usually initiated by cell phone companies against municipalities in their frequent and aggressive efforts to secure adequate sites for cell phone towers. One of the most contentious elements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a provision that ruled that local officials could not regulate the placement, construction or modification of cellular facilities on the basis of the environmental or health effects of radiation (provided those emissions conformed to current FCC standards and regulations). Although many considered this to be a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which preserves certain state rights -- in this instance, the authority of the FCC to prevent local authorities from making zoning decisions on health, safety and local land use issues is viewed as being inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution – these types of challenges have not been upheld in the courts. The FCC insists to this day that low frequency, non-ionizing radio frequency radiation (RFR) of the type currently emitted from cell phone towers is not harmful, despite a growing body of rather compelling research indicating just the opposite.

What is well documented, unfortunately, is the fact that there is a paucity of funding for solid, substantiated research on the long-term health and environmental effects of exposure to RFR. The vast majority of research conducted so far has been sponsored by either the government, the military or the cell phone industry itself, all of whom have too much at stake to focus on or reveal negative or detrimental conclusory evidence. In fact, in arriving at its conclusion that there are no harmful effects from RFR exposure in the Telecommunications Act, the FCC itself relied on data from outside sources, much of which has been castigated in recent years. In 2002, for example, a Conference in Salzburg, Austria with 300 participants from all over the world, convened to present the current state of knowledge on the biological and health effects of radio frequency fields and exposure levels; it concluded that “current evidence suggests that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radio frequencies on human health”[iv], and several countries, including Canada, immediately lobbied to have their own exposure limits (measured in milliwatts per square centimeter) raised by a factor of 10,000.

In purely layman’s terms, RFR from wireless facilities is low frequency and low-energy, and produces low amounts of heat in biological tissue compared to other forms of non-ionizing emissions, such as microwaves. The long-term effects of such thermal exposure are not clearly known; however, some research has indicated that RFR also produces non-thermal effects. It appears that exposure to low levels of RFR can enhance the release of calcium ions in animal brains, for example (although the extent to which that is harmful is not yet known). Other researchers have found that RFR exposure is correlated with changes in the immune system, neurological and behavioral effects and various biological effects such as nausea, headaches and fatigue. Certainly, contradictory experimental results have also been reported, mostly supported by research from -- no surprise here – the cell phone industry.

We also know that close range exposure to the antennae on cell towers is heavily regulated and “can in fact be quite damaging. The OSHA standard for the technicians who work on the antennae is that they shall work in close proximity to them for no more than six minutes at a time. In other words, they aren’t equivalent to table lamps or clock radios in terms of RFR, as certain Sprint personnel have suggested…in the past”.[v]

Despite what is known or feared about the long term effects of continued exposure to RFR, the fact of the matter is that it is probably too early in the lifecycle of cellular communication to have definitive information one way or another. Still, the perception that cell towers (and cell phone usage itself) may have detrimental, long term effects lingers in our society, as does the belief that property adjacent to, or within view of, cell towers will decline in value. Virtually everyone wants improved cellular capacity – especially in emergency situations – yet hardly anyone would prefer to live next to a cell tower. Keep in mind that even in modern times, our government has proclaimed the absolute safety of exposure to a variety of substances and items that were later proven to be quite harmful and dangerous; these include, but are certainly not limited to things like X-rays (which were once available at local shoe stores) benzene, thalidomide, asbestos, nuclear fallout and, most recently, Vioxx. While I am not suggesting that RFR exposure falls into this category, the bottom line is that we simply do not know how dangerous it really is. Should we not at the very least be aware of the emerging research that points to rather serious consequences of continued RFR exposure, and also be vigilant in our understanding of all the concerns surrounding the issue of cell tower siting? I think the answer is self-evident. And the law does appear to be very clear on at least one important point, and that is that governing bodies must consider “substantial evidence in a written record” in order to deny permits for cell towers.

If current legislation precludes us from basing cell tower siting decisions on potential health and environmental impacts, then we must investigate and formulate the other issues that constitute the requirement of “substantial evidence”. Further research will elucidate other elements that clearly represent a diminution of a community’s overall of quality of life, and these must be incorporated into our regulatory legislation.

For example, we should be concerned with the issue of liability, and ask who ultimately will be responsible later on down the road when and if conclusive research on long-term health effects does emerge; will it be the local municipality or Town? the property owner on whose land the cell tower is situated? the cell phone companies? the federal government? the companies that designed the antennae?

Obviously the real crux of the matter, with regard to the siting of cell phone towers, is how close they can or should be located to residences and other buildings without posing a hazard of any sort. Siting decisions with respect to the issue of proximity will affect the value of homes and the quality of life for those living near the towers.

Aside from the potential health effects, a proliferation of cell towers and/or antennae in any given region will substantially impact the cultural landscape. A community should be concerned with aesthetics, as well as preserving the integrity of the landscape as a whole – certainly as a collection of archaeological, historical and natural features. We in Somers should be doing whatever it takes to preserve our scenic vistas and corridors, as well as our ridgelines, whether they abut Town roads and property, or State roads and property within our borders.

Similarly, the effect on property values must be taken into consideration. Although the cell phone industry continues to provide “expert” testimony that there is no evidence to support the allegation that there is any decline in the value of residential property in close proximity to or within eyesight of cell towers, especially those that are ‘cleverly’ disguised as trees or flagpoles, any realtor or homeowner would tell you quite the opposite. Perhaps the Town’s Property Assessor should research this situation, as well as examine the issue of the actual assessment of the equipment stored at the base of every cell tower (as this has been raised as an issue that is not being seriously looked at by most municipalities).

Furthermore, cell phone towers pose a serious hazard to migrating birds. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service now estimates that at least 4 million birds – and possibly as many as 40 million – are killed every year at cell towers nationwide.[vi] Although lighted towers and those considerably higher than those currently allowed in Somers account for the majority of those accidents, cell towers sited on or near hilltops “may increase cell towers’ impacts on migratory birds even further”.[vii]

There is also the issue of co-location. Federal law mandates that, wherever possible, all cell phone carriers be allowed to co-locate on existing or new cell towers. What this means is that if Sprint, for example, succeeds in erecting a tower in Somers, and if that tower is high enough, the other five cell carriers can request to be co-located on that tower. Furthermore, in the current political climate (and within the domain of the Patriot Act) there is now reason to believe that “other entities” may wish to co-locate as well. Local legislation should be drafted to take these types of considerations into effect.

Finally, the height of cell towers must be carefully re-considered. At a recent ZBA meeting in Somers, the attorney representing Sprint in the cell tower application mentioned above, exclaimed that the Town’s new ordinance was “shortsighted” in that by limiting the height of cell towers it almost certainly guaranteed that there would be more erected in order to take care of all the other carriers. Higher towers in more remote areas of Town might be the solution, especially on land that is currently owned by the State or DEP.

For these reasons alone – and without a doubt there are many more that I did not uncover -- I urge you to take a hard look at the issue of cell tower siting and all of the impacts it portends. These impacts must be researched and clearly defined as, under the law, they may serve as the only recourse available to successfully challenge cell tower siting cases. I would also ask that you examine Somers’ new ordinance with an eye toward suggesting revisions that would make it an even stronger and more far-reaching piece of legislation. Why support a situation where local residents are forced to hire outside legal assistance – often at great personal expense -- because local regulations are not strong enough to provide for their protection?

Certainly the issue of cell tower siting is something that ought to be examined during the process of creating a new Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Somers, especially insofar as a proliferation of cell towers will certainly have many impacts on the Town for years to come. Please give this issue careful and deliberate consideration and, if need be, request a moratorium on future cell tower siting until you are prepared to make your recommendations.

Please read through some of the documentation I have provided. I realize that there is a lot here – over 200 pages at last count – so I have reassembled it for you in an online fashion, utilizing software that allowed me to collect all of the documents and put them together in an easy-to-read and access format for you; I trust you will find it useful.

The URL for this information is: http://www.forsomers.org/Research/celltower.html

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully yours,
Allan Golden
ForSomers.org
P.O. Box 24
Amawalk, NY 10501

cc: Somers Town Board, Somers Planning Board, Somers Conservation Board, Somers Zoning Board of Appeals, Somers Open Space Committee, Dennis Tobin, PhD., Andrew Carfield (F. P. Clark Associates)

[i] Code of the Town of Somers, NY; Part II General Legislation; Chapter 170, Zoning; article XXIIA, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
[ii] Source: Merrill Lynch, Wireless Matrix, July 2002
[iii] According to Fry’s Tower Source, a research group for the wireless industry that tracks the number of cell towers nationwide [cited in Cell Towers Lead to Litigation Static, Tresa Baldas, The National Law Journal in The New Jersey law Journal, September 27, 2004]
[iv] International Conference on Cell Tower Siting: Linking Science and Public Health (Salzburg, Austria, June 7-8, 2000)
[v] Sprint Off Schools! Reasonable Doubt…(6.25.03); included in package
[vi] Bedford Audubon, Cell Towers & Wildlife
[vii] Idem

Somers' Schools -- Between a Rock and a Hard Place

2004-10-08T15:38:00.000-04:00

On the eve of what will undoubtedly prove to be the most significant (and certainly most expensive) decision in its history, the Somers Central School District's Board of Education (BOE) finds itself stuck between a rock and a very hard place.

Faced with severe overcrowding in all four of its schools and skyrocketing enrollment, especially in kindergarten classes, the BOE must decide between two proposals it is now considering:

Expansion and rehabilitation of the four existing schools (at a projected cost of $70 million, and including both the purchase of land for future growth and the somewhat controversial move of the district's bus facility from its current location adjacent to the Middle School to an environmentally-sensitive piece of property behind Somers High School); or
Purchase of land on which to build a new Middle school, along with a major expansion of Somers High School (currently projected at $81 million).

Odds are that the Board will endorse the second proposal at its scheduled meeting next Tuesday (10/12) evening. That is certainly what Superintendent of Schools Joanne Marien is recommending, and that is what the architect hired by the District has told the Board will give the Town the most flexibility for years to come. And judging by the questions and concerns raised by many Town residents at two recent public forums hosted by the Board, that is how the people of Somers will ultimately vote when the BOE brings that decision to the taxpayers in the form of a bond referendum.

And so, no matter which proposal the BOE selects next week, we will all be looking at a dramatic increase in school taxes (somewhere in the vicinity of $500 - $600 per 'average' household -- currently assessed at $60,000 -- if the second proposal wins out). If we place a high premium on our children's' education, and most of us certainly do, there really is no other choice but to spend a few million dollars more and construct a new school facility. Our children will hopefully reap the benefits of a brand, new Middle school facility as well as a dramatically enhanced High school; and the strain on the two elementary schools will be markedly decreased.

But where and when did we simply run out of viable options?

It must be said that observing the BOE arrive at these two proposals over the course of the last year was something akin to watching an old Marx Brothers movie.

First, we observed them sitting through months of presentations by their architectural consultants going over every single permutation and combination as to how the four existing schools could be "expanded and rehabilitated", each one with increasingly distressing costs attached.

To make matters worse, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was quickly drawn up by the Board's engineering consultant and, by all appearances, was summarily approved by the BOE without any input or feedback from the community at a rather hastily convened "public comment" session. When ForSomers.org discovered this, a second forum was scheduled at which about 20 residents pointed out several glaring and adverse environmental impacts that the BOE's plans entailed (not the least of which was the proposed relocation of the bus depot right in the middle of a Town-regulated wetland); subsequent to the meeting, similar comments were submitted in writing by the Somers Town Planner, the Somers Conservation Board, the Somers Open Space Committee and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). By law, each of the "substantive" issues raised was to be thoroughly discussed in the ensuing Final Environmental Impact Statement, or FEIS; I can tell you that that document, released a couple of weeks ago, offered somewhat less than "substantive" responses to our many concerns (but that's a story for another time).

Then, we witnessed the Board being completely baffled when kindergarten enrollment for the 2004 school year yet again exceeded their demographer's projections by a full "section", or class size. At our suggestion, a second demographer was employed to take another look at the numbers, and the higher projections were confirmed. All of a sudden, expansion and rehabilitation became "We need a new school!". But where to put it? After all, the District doesn't own any land, and there aren' t many suitable parcels of buildable property left in Somers.

And all the while, more and more parents (especially groups of new residents of Somers, with kids just enrolled or about to enter Primrose Elementary School, and with the fear that the wonderful school district that, in fact, had led many of them to move to Somers in the first place was beginning to crumble before their very eyes) started attending BOE meetings and pleading "Hey! What about our kids? There are too many kids in each classroom, the teachers can't handle it, our childrens' education is being compromised! What are you going to do about that?".

And then we witnessed perhaps the ultimate tragi-comedic moment when, finally bowing to public pressure, the District decided, "regretfully", to move its administrative offices from Primrose School -- where they occupied three classroom-sized spaces that could have alleviated much of the overcrowding in that school -- to rented office space elsewhere in Somers. Oh, the sacrifices they must endure for our children!

But "where and when did we simply run out of viable options"? I raised that question earlier on and, from what I've written since, you may have already jumped to the conclusion that I blame the BOE for this precarious and calamitous situation. I'll be the first to admit that they certainly make for an easy target and, yes, they have oft been criticized for a multitude of 'sins' that left them with few choices.

But it is really "we" who are to blame -- we the residents and taxpayers of Somers. Because we, both longtime and relatively new residents alike -- who chose to live in Somers because it has great schools, and because it is situated in semi-rural splendor, and, let's not forget, because it has amongst the lowest taxes in the region -- we all sat idly by and watched as greedy developers ravaged our hillsides, valleys and shorelines; as traffic and congestion started to become more than just an annoyance, compromising our mobility and polluting the air we breathe; as our already-limited Town services (fire, police, library, parks & recreation) became increasingly more stressed; as our taxes started to creep upwards; as our classrooms became larger and larger; as our fragile ecosystem grew more and more endangered by each wetland encroachment; and, finally, as our precious water supply became imminently threatened.

We all had "more important" things on our minds, like our jobs and catching the 5:58 out of Grand Central Terminal. We didn't really notice until 188 homes "suddenly" sprung out of the ground on Route 118, or until one of our neighbors asked us about all those homes being built on the shores of the Amawalk Reservoir. And, hey, have you heard about Eagle River yet??!!!!

Maybe it caught up to you when one of your kids happened to mention that it was "kinda cool" having lunch in their classroom (because the cafeteria at SIS can no longer accommodate all the children at once). Or maybe you had a chance to have a heart-to-heart with one of the teachers at Primrose, who confided in you that things were really getting out of hand. Or maybe you watched in total disbelief as one of your neighbor's houses burned to the ground because the local fire department couldn't get water up the hill fast enough?

This beautiful town of ours has grown much too quickly in recent years, and much of that growth has been unchecked and poorly managed. We have seen almost 1200 new housing units built in Somers over the last decade, and most of us don't really need a demographer to tell us how many children have moved into the district as a result. We are all paying the price for this rapid growth now and, next year when the School's referendum has been enacted, we'll be paying even more. Certainly our children's education is worth any price, we tell ourselves in justification.

But is it really? What of the thousands of Somers residents who live on fixed incomes, and who no longer have school-aged children? What of those of us for whom a poor economy and loss of jobs has been a devastating reality? Should only wealthy people be entitled to live in Somers? What about our volunteer firemen and police and teachers -- shouldn't they, too, be welcomed to live in our community?

And what happens when our wells run dry, or our groundwater is polluted beyond remediation? And the beautiful reservoirs, for which we are legal stewards, become even more compromised with phosphorus and pollutants than they are now?

All of these issues are intertwined, and cannot be dealt with apart from one another. Unfortunately, the Board of Education has only to "fix" one of these issues; and we probably have no other recourse but to dig deep into our pockets and help the District build its new school. But we have a more monumental task in front of us, and perhaps just a brief moment in time in which to address all of these problems together and work together to find meaningful solutions. We must act together -- as neighbors and friends and responsible citizens -- and demand from our elected officials that this Growth be slowed down, that new and tougher zoning regulations be imposed, that everything possible be done to safeguard our community. And, yes, at the same time demand that the BOE do exactly the same thing.

Welcome to the ForSomers.org Blog!

2004-09-16T10:19:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the brand new ForSomers.org Blog!

By finally getting "into the groove", so to speak, with the best of what modern communication technology has to offer, we will attempt to use this weblog format to bring you the latest news, information and insights concerning everything we are currently 'watching' in Somers.

Whether it's Eagle River, Granite Pointe, the Schools situation -- whatever strikes us as being important to our stated goal of "establishing a protocol of responsible and responsive growth planning in Somers" -- this is where you'll find all the latest information.

We hope you like this format and use it often, and please don't be shy about piping in with your own thoughts and comments. We'll keep you apprised of any new features we decide to add as we get more familiar with it ourselves, but in the meantime, let's get down to business!

See you on the ForSomers.org Blog!