Sunday, April 21, 2013
A TALE OF TWO TERRORISTS
Below is the link to my recent Op=Ed in the New York Post...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/tale_of_two_terrorists_3WtcmY2p7PwFkbO1NheqNL
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
MY REMARKS AT TONIGHT'S CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING
REMARKS TO THE YONKERS CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION, AUGUST 12, 2009
John M. Murtagh
Members of the Commission,
I need not tell you where I stand on this very misguided proposal. My record in favor of historic preservation is a long one.
Nevertheless, I do feel a record must be made.
The current proposal is wrong on many levels.
In the first place it is, frankly, an insult and an affront to the good, dedicated and knowledgeable members of our Landmarks Board everyone of them a volunteer serving for no other reason than a love for and a concern for this City and its many and varied neighborhoods.
Secondly, it is nothing but a bald attempt to usurp the power of the City Council, to place the Planning Board in the role of exercising veto power over decisions of the Landmarks Board before they ever reach the desks of those of us elected to represent the very neighborhoods impacted.
Thirdly, I believe this proposal is an ill-conceived knee jerk response to the Council’s vote to create the Phillipse Manor Historic District. That single vote, taken with the unanimous support of the Landmarks Board is, to my knowledge, the first time that this or any Landmarks Board in Yonkers or any City Council has exercised the Landmarking power in a manner that directly impacted a significant development project…and what was the immediate reaction…in effect, if you can’t beat them, kill them. In this case, effectively kill the Landmarks Board...and yes, it simply cannot be ignored that the Chairman of this commission is also the President of the property owner most impacted by the creation of the Phillipse Manor District. I say that not as some ad-hominem attack but merely as a statement of fact. I might add that since the landmarking, Greyston has appeared to work in good faith to achieve a workable compromise at that sit. Nevertheless, one can’t but suspect a bit of payback in this proposal.
Fourth, as a procedural matter, I believe some clarification is necessary. You sit as a “Charter” revision commission. Yet, the Landmarks ordinance and the statute which creates and enables the Landmarks Board is not in our Charter, but in our Code. You are not a “Code” revision commission. Indeed, the Code, to my knowledge, is the jurisdiction of the elected City Council and not this appointed Board.
These are specific criticisms, but the real issue is more fundamental and much broader…and that is: What direction will we take as a City as we redevelop? Unlike many of our neighbors – White Plains and Stamford Connecticut come to mind- we still have many of our old, historic and significant buildings and neighborhoods intact. When those cities remade there downtowns years and even decades ago, they did so with a wrecking ball and a bulldozer and no appreciation for the treasures they were leveling. For reasons political and otherwise, Yonkers missed those building booms of decades past. But as a result, we now have the opportunity to do better, to appreciate our history, our heritage and the fabric of our communities and to weave something better from that fabric by combining the best of the old and the new. We have a simple philosophical choice. Do we celebrate our heritage and preserve our history or do we bulldoze that history, blacktop that heritage and create yet another cookie cutter city? Do we recognize the extraordinary value of what we have and make it an integral part of a revitalized Yonkers or do we simply create acres more of glass, steel and concrete indistinguishable from New Roc City, the City Center in White Plains or Summer Street in Stamford?
Let me close tonight by quoting someone who said it all long ago and better than me. Jane Jacobs was no expert, no architect or engineer, no City Planner or developer. She was a housewife on Hudson Street in Greenwich Village fifty years ago when Robert Moses proposed bulldozing most of the West Village including Washington Square Park to build a highway across Manhattan from New Jersey to Long Island. Jane Jacobs a simple housewife took Moses on and won. Later, in her seminal book, the Death and Life of the American City here is what she said:
Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary old buildings….
If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.
If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and small shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.
As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.
Thank you.
John M. Murtagh
Members of the Commission,
I need not tell you where I stand on this very misguided proposal. My record in favor of historic preservation is a long one.
Nevertheless, I do feel a record must be made.
The current proposal is wrong on many levels.
In the first place it is, frankly, an insult and an affront to the good, dedicated and knowledgeable members of our Landmarks Board everyone of them a volunteer serving for no other reason than a love for and a concern for this City and its many and varied neighborhoods.
Secondly, it is nothing but a bald attempt to usurp the power of the City Council, to place the Planning Board in the role of exercising veto power over decisions of the Landmarks Board before they ever reach the desks of those of us elected to represent the very neighborhoods impacted.
Thirdly, I believe this proposal is an ill-conceived knee jerk response to the Council’s vote to create the Phillipse Manor Historic District. That single vote, taken with the unanimous support of the Landmarks Board is, to my knowledge, the first time that this or any Landmarks Board in Yonkers or any City Council has exercised the Landmarking power in a manner that directly impacted a significant development project…and what was the immediate reaction…in effect, if you can’t beat them, kill them. In this case, effectively kill the Landmarks Board...and yes, it simply cannot be ignored that the Chairman of this commission is also the President of the property owner most impacted by the creation of the Phillipse Manor District. I say that not as some ad-hominem attack but merely as a statement of fact. I might add that since the landmarking, Greyston has appeared to work in good faith to achieve a workable compromise at that sit. Nevertheless, one can’t but suspect a bit of payback in this proposal.
Fourth, as a procedural matter, I believe some clarification is necessary. You sit as a “Charter” revision commission. Yet, the Landmarks ordinance and the statute which creates and enables the Landmarks Board is not in our Charter, but in our Code. You are not a “Code” revision commission. Indeed, the Code, to my knowledge, is the jurisdiction of the elected City Council and not this appointed Board.
These are specific criticisms, but the real issue is more fundamental and much broader…and that is: What direction will we take as a City as we redevelop? Unlike many of our neighbors – White Plains and Stamford Connecticut come to mind- we still have many of our old, historic and significant buildings and neighborhoods intact. When those cities remade there downtowns years and even decades ago, they did so with a wrecking ball and a bulldozer and no appreciation for the treasures they were leveling. For reasons political and otherwise, Yonkers missed those building booms of decades past. But as a result, we now have the opportunity to do better, to appreciate our history, our heritage and the fabric of our communities and to weave something better from that fabric by combining the best of the old and the new. We have a simple philosophical choice. Do we celebrate our heritage and preserve our history or do we bulldoze that history, blacktop that heritage and create yet another cookie cutter city? Do we recognize the extraordinary value of what we have and make it an integral part of a revitalized Yonkers or do we simply create acres more of glass, steel and concrete indistinguishable from New Roc City, the City Center in White Plains or Summer Street in Stamford?
Let me close tonight by quoting someone who said it all long ago and better than me. Jane Jacobs was no expert, no architect or engineer, no City Planner or developer. She was a housewife on Hudson Street in Greenwich Village fifty years ago when Robert Moses proposed bulldozing most of the West Village including Washington Square Park to build a highway across Manhattan from New Jersey to Long Island. Jane Jacobs a simple housewife took Moses on and won. Later, in her seminal book, the Death and Life of the American City here is what she said:
Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary old buildings….
If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.
If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and small shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.
As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.
Thank you.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
NAVIGATING THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCESS
Across Westchester County and New York State,the beginning of the new school year is a time of both excitement and anticipation. Children and parents alike look forward to seeing friends and returning to the familiar routine but also anticipate new schools, new teachers and the changes they bring.
This transition is most times smooth but can sometimes be the cause of some anxiety and adjustment. This is particularly so for families and children with special needs. Whether toddler or teenager, the autistic child, the child on the spectrum or the child with other physical, emotional or behavioral issues may face unique circumstances and demands requiring intervention and the cooperation of the particular school system.
Appropriate special education services are available in most if not all suburban school districts. Indeed, such services are a child’s right under federal law which guarantees every child a ‘free appropriate public education”. Nonetheless, with resources limited and budgets and bureaucracies stretched, parents often find themselves struggling to get their school district to provide the special education services their child needs. What should be a cooperative effort becomes adversarial. It is then that parents must be sure they have to tools, the information and the guidance they need to protect their child’s interests.
Typically, the special education process begins when a parent or a school staff member makes a referral for an initial evaluation. In the event that someone other than the parent makes the referral, the parents must still agree in writing. Based on the results of the referral, a decision will be made as to whether the child is eligible for special education services.
If the child is deemed not eligible, parents have the right to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The school district must then either agree to the evaluation at its expense or prove at a Due Process Hearing why its initial evaluation was appropriate. A Due Process Hearing is a formal, impartial hearing at which both sides, the parents and the school, present their positions and a Hearing Officer makes a determination. Alternatively, the school district must make mediation available.
If the child is deemed eligible the parents and school district will draft an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) at an IEP Team meeting. Parents and the school must recognize that the parent is a true team member entitled to participate fully in crafting the child’s IEP. An IEP will list any special services the child needs, one year goals for the child and benchmarks for progress and placement decisions as to where best the child’s needs can be met. The law requires that the child be placed in the Least Restrictive Environment appropriate. Ideally, a child should be placed in a regular classroom where appropriate special services are made available. Again, the parents are entitled to fully participate in this decision making process.
If disagreements as to the IEP arise, the parent and child are entitled to another Due Process Hearing. Assuming an appropriate IEP can be crafted, the IEP team then meets at least once a year to discuss progress, goals and services.
Ideally, the process outlined will be a cooperative one. However, appropriate special education services can be expensive and complex. As a result, parents may find themselves struggling against a school district bureaucracy to secure the services their child needs. Under such circumstances, the parent and child are entitled to have an education advocate or attorney represent them and assist them in securing needed services. Such an ally can bring their knowledge of the education system, available resources and the law to bear in arguing the family’s position. By helping parents learn, understand and articulate their rights, the advocate or attorney can provide families the support they need to obtain the education their child deserves.
This transition is most times smooth but can sometimes be the cause of some anxiety and adjustment. This is particularly so for families and children with special needs. Whether toddler or teenager, the autistic child, the child on the spectrum or the child with other physical, emotional or behavioral issues may face unique circumstances and demands requiring intervention and the cooperation of the particular school system.
Appropriate special education services are available in most if not all suburban school districts. Indeed, such services are a child’s right under federal law which guarantees every child a ‘free appropriate public education”. Nonetheless, with resources limited and budgets and bureaucracies stretched, parents often find themselves struggling to get their school district to provide the special education services their child needs. What should be a cooperative effort becomes adversarial. It is then that parents must be sure they have to tools, the information and the guidance they need to protect their child’s interests.
Typically, the special education process begins when a parent or a school staff member makes a referral for an initial evaluation. In the event that someone other than the parent makes the referral, the parents must still agree in writing. Based on the results of the referral, a decision will be made as to whether the child is eligible for special education services.
If the child is deemed not eligible, parents have the right to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The school district must then either agree to the evaluation at its expense or prove at a Due Process Hearing why its initial evaluation was appropriate. A Due Process Hearing is a formal, impartial hearing at which both sides, the parents and the school, present their positions and a Hearing Officer makes a determination. Alternatively, the school district must make mediation available.
If the child is deemed eligible the parents and school district will draft an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) at an IEP Team meeting. Parents and the school must recognize that the parent is a true team member entitled to participate fully in crafting the child’s IEP. An IEP will list any special services the child needs, one year goals for the child and benchmarks for progress and placement decisions as to where best the child’s needs can be met. The law requires that the child be placed in the Least Restrictive Environment appropriate. Ideally, a child should be placed in a regular classroom where appropriate special services are made available. Again, the parents are entitled to fully participate in this decision making process.
If disagreements as to the IEP arise, the parent and child are entitled to another Due Process Hearing. Assuming an appropriate IEP can be crafted, the IEP team then meets at least once a year to discuss progress, goals and services.
Ideally, the process outlined will be a cooperative one. However, appropriate special education services can be expensive and complex. As a result, parents may find themselves struggling against a school district bureaucracy to secure the services their child needs. Under such circumstances, the parent and child are entitled to have an education advocate or attorney represent them and assist them in securing needed services. Such an ally can bring their knowledge of the education system, available resources and the law to bear in arguing the family’s position. By helping parents learn, understand and articulate their rights, the advocate or attorney can provide families the support they need to obtain the education their child deserves.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Worth a look
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Honus Wagner sets another record.
Honus Wagner, the baseball Hall of Famer who retired in 1917, just set another record. His 1909 baseball card sold at auction this week for 2.35 million dollars. It seems the card is rare because it was distributed by a cigarette company and Wagner, a non-smoker, had it recalled because he didn't want to encourage children to develop any bad habits. I wonder if any of today's ballpalyers are listening...can you say steroids?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Not so "small" business
A business related site I visited recently listed some interesting facts. It pointed out that there are 4.8 million businesses in the United States with fewer than 99 employees. These "small" businesses put a roof over the head of some 41 million individuals (not counting family members). They are producing nearly three quarters of the new jobs in this country each year. Indeed, "small" business accounts for over 50% of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States.
Thats why I've told more than one of my clients that they don't own a small business...they own a growing business...and they are the country's economic engine.
Thats why I've told more than one of my clients that they don't own a small business...they own a growing business...and they are the country's economic engine.
Friday, February 23, 2007
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog..."
So said one dog to another as they sat at the keyboard in the well known New Yorker cartoon a few years back. Unfortunately, if certain members of Congress have their way, they may not know if you're a dog, but they will know a great deal more about your computer habits.
Under a new bill introduced in Congress within the last few weeks, Internet Service Providers would be required to maintain the names and addresses corresponding to every IP address for the ISP's customers. The bill would also allow the U.S. Attorney General to require ISPs to maintain information on traffic, sites visited and the content of e-mails.
The bill was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas as part of a "Law and Order" initiative. It will bear careful watching, lest law and order cross the line into invasion of privacy.
Under a new bill introduced in Congress within the last few weeks, Internet Service Providers would be required to maintain the names and addresses corresponding to every IP address for the ISP's customers. The bill would also allow the U.S. Attorney General to require ISPs to maintain information on traffic, sites visited and the content of e-mails.
The bill was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas as part of a "Law and Order" initiative. It will bear careful watching, lest law and order cross the line into invasion of privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
