New Paltz school land vote

Today, New Paltz voters get a chance to decide if the schools will be able to buy some land.  Community sentiment seems largely against the project, and some of the details I've learned today give me pause, while others really clear things up in my mind.

First, the bad.  Whether the reasons for speed are good ones or not, this thing is moving too fast for people to digest it.  Yes, most people prefer to vote uninformed, but they rely on those few who pay attention, and many of those are voting no because they don't know enough.

A real estate broker I know wonders about the soil test on this parcel, which was an orchard, I believe.  Normally, she tells me, soil tests happen before the contract is signed, but in this case it's to be part of the contract.  That makes her nervous, and me too.  I don't know what happens if it turns out to be contaminated.

Another of my friends, a student at the high school, pondered instead using the capital reserve fund for middle school renovations.  I think I can answer that, but first let me explain where this money is coming from.

The capital reserve fund was authorized by voters in 2005 -- the board can sock away up to $5 million for projects like renovating the middle school, although the most they've saved is $1.2 million.  This is money not used in past years, for things like snow plowing, which the voters told them it's okay to save, rather than giving back to us.  In my estimation, this is democratic (we voted), transparent (we know what it can be used for), and conservative (they can eliminate borrowing costs by spending money they have rather than money they don't have).

So why not the middle school?  I'm thinking they don't have enough money to begin to fix those problems, and they're looking to a future without that building.  I don't know that I like that attitude, but the community has spoken pretty loudly in the past.

The rationale behind the land grab is to allow for consolidation, building new near Lenape and pulling back from the middle school.  It could make for a leaner district.  Voting no won't get that money back, because we already told them they could take it.  I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to vote no, but that's not one of them.

What's up with the school buses?

I had a meeting at the middle school this morning, and I was leaving around the time that most of the kids were arriving.

Actually, the building was packed with kids, the ones who arrived by bus.  Out front, though, was a long line of cars dropping kids off in ones and twos.  Each child would dutifully wait until the parent's car pulled to the front of the line before getting out.  I saw no child get out of a car more than twenty feet from the front door, and there was a line of cars spilling out onto Manheim.

I assume that this is a daily occurrence.  I don't get to the middle school all that often, so it was new to me.  It makes me wonder, though, what the problem is with the buses that so many parents drive their kids to school.  I have some theories:

• The walk from the bus area is too far.  This is possible, since no child was traveling as much as fifty feet from car to door.
• Bullying happens on buses.  I know it did when I was a kid.
• The time on the bus is too long from some parents (or children).

Beyond that, I have no clue.  Are there any driving parents who can tell me why they do it?  It seems like it adds a lot of time to an adult's morning routine, adds even more pollution from idling engines, and doesn't utilize buses that the district has to run anyway.  Are one or more of my guesses correct?  Is there another reason?

I voted no once, too

I'm not always as supportive of capital projects as I was of the Middle School renovation. I was part of a large majority of people that opposed a massive expansion in the district of my youth. Curious?

The district I attended was much larger than this one, having three elementary and two secondary schools, with three of the five buildings occupying adjacent land. (My best friend's middle and high schools were actually physically connected by a corridor, and our experiences completely discounted in my mind the argument that it wouldn't be safe to build a Middle School next to the New Paltz High School, but I see a lot less danger in the world for kids today than many parents do anyway.) Student populations rise and fall, and when I was quite young they decided to close the smallest elementary school and lease the building to BOCES.

After that lease expired they had a different situation on their hands: the high school was jam-packed! The Board of Ed, knowing that it's tough to float a bond, came up with an innovative solution. They would sell the old elementary school to a condo developer to finance the two extra wings they needed for the high school. The project wouldn't have cost that much in dollars, but it would have added 70-80 homes to a community that was simultaneously losing a lot of potential classroom capacity. It went down in flames.

So yes, I understand that there are two sides to every school finance vote, and in this case the side I didn't support won. Frankly, the way our system is designed it's easier to be on the winning side when you're voting no. But what's done is done, and let's move on. The school district's press release said it best:

While we are obviously disappointed in the defeat of the referendum, we will waste no time in setting the outcome aside in order to work towards finding another solution to address our Middle School’s needs. Throughout the entire multi-year planning and discussion about this referendum, people on both sides of the issue were in agreement that there were severe issues at the Middle School that needed to be dealt with. That fact gives us common ground to work on, and we will gather there--on that common ground--to push ahead and seek a solution that the majority of the community can support. We must waste no time in moving forward in order to get our Middle School out of the horrible state of deterioration it faces and ensure that further, more costly issues are not created. The longer we wait, the more will be needed and the costlier the solution will be.

There's a time for fighting and there's a time for fixing. We need to fix things now. New Paltz is a community with such a diverse set of well-considered ideas that sometimes, particularly in a place like this blog where we can hide behind our keyboards, things get pretty heated. But this isn't just an internet forum - we are neighbors and, for the most part, we all like living here.

Shall we shelve the rhetoric and work towards finding a way to say yes? The problems at the school aren't going away and no one has said they want to stop educating our kids. How about we step outside, take a breath of fresh air, and have a cup of coffee with someone that didn't agree so we can find that common ground? I hear The Bakery is a great place for a lively debate.

Back in business

Someone made a new sign for my lawn. This one is on heavy-duty cardboard so it might not hold up in the weather as well as the heavy-duty reused plastic sign I used to have. But like most people in favor of giving our kids a healthy place to learn effectively, I am going to save my money for the modest tax increase instead of spending it on propaganda.

Thieves and scoundrels!

Readers here will get another preview of a letter I just sent to the editor.

Many of my fellow New Paltz residents may have seen the sign I placed in front of my home on South Chestnut Street, which proclaimed, "Homeowners are for the Middle School - Landlords are NOT!" My home was a good location for this sign, because it is not only highly visible, it's just down the street from a very expensive anti-Middle School sign on a rental property. (There are several of those large signs around town, all of which are on multi-unit, non-owner-occupied buildings.)

This morning I discovered that the sign, which was secured to a tree in my yard by and Eagle Scout well acquainted with knots, was missing.

I respect the fact that people have differing views on the Middle School. I welcome debate. I'm even open to change my own position, if I hear enough evidence to sway me. I do not have children in school, so I will not be swayed by emotional arguments, but I relish a factual debate.

I draw the line at supporting petty thievery to silence the opposition.

And yes, I'm filing a police report and sincerely hope the bastards are caught. On the other hand, if they need to be this petty they must be scared.

Signs of the times

Walking through New Paltz this rainy morning (it's what able-bodied, community-minded folks like to do from time to time) I see that my handmade sign that reuses an old plastic sign fared better in last night's weather than either of the large, wooden ones erected in opposition on Chestnut Street. (The two that are nailed illegally to a utility pole near 46 North Chestnut did just fine, but I will be calling Central Hudson to see if they intend on removing the signs from their private property, or if they'd rather publically oppose the project.) In particular, the shattered 2x4 on North Chestnut will have to be replaced, and that's going to cost money.

One thing most people in New Paltz don't know about me is that I was a landlord. Before I owned a home I had four multi-unit buildings (8 units in all). It was a small operation, but I completely understand what it takes to make a living as a landlord. It was probably tougher for me to make a buck than a serious landlord, because I'm not very good with tools (I had Henry Papka of In Living Color take care of most of the tougher work; his prices are reasonable and his results are excellent for all handyman stuff), didn't have much of a cushion to ride things out when I had a vacancy, and I couldn't really save money by buying supplies in bulk. I did review tax assessments of my properties to make sure they weren't being assessed at too high a value.

Probably the biggest reason I wasn't making money hand over fist as a landlord is because I did actually keep up with maintenance. I know a lot about the rental buildings in New Paltz, and I know that they (usually) comply with the bare minimum required. My wife lived in an apartment owned by a prolific landlord in this are for seven years, and after complaining about a dangerous maintenance situation for three of them she asked him to fix it before she would accept another rent increase. He decided to evict her instead, and has since only rented to college students, who don't complain so much. I've had access to many more buildings that confirm that her experience was no fluke.

I guess it's just cheaper to oppose giving our kids a safe and effective learning environment (which the state is requiring, after all) than to use that money to keep one's tenants safe and comfortable. At least that's my view as someone who has been both a landlord and a committed member of my community.

The signage battle

I have to wonder if the folks involved in UniteOurLandlordsDistrict.com are going to find a single owner-occupied home to place one of their giant signs on. You have to pay to play here in New Paltz, and these folks just can't stand the fact that they can't charge gullible students insanely high rents to live in subpar conditions without paying more in taxes from time to time to support the community in which they make their obscene profits.

I lived in a house like that while in college, and these landlords are just as singleminded and community-hating as mine was.

What the Middle School opposition is saying

I'm trying to read between the lines of the message being sent by those who are opposed to renovating the Middle School.

• It's going to cost us far too much money, they say. They say it with full-page ads in the New Paltz Times (which run $800, I've heard), and they say it with mass-produced lawn signs. The supporters are sticking to writing letters and repainting their old signs.
• They say it with a lot of landlords, who are paying taxes that will not directly benefit them or their children. Many of the supporters have children in the school system (although some of us are supporting it because it benefits the community, which we see as a home, not a revenue source).
  
• They never say they don't want to support education, even though some of them probably do. People get emotional about children (some love them, some hate them) and it's probably for the best to leave emotions out of the discussion because they just cloud the issue.
• They find interesting ways to frame their arguments. This week's paper has several folks pointing to the gym roof collapse is proof that this renovation isn't necessary. I'm intrigued - wouldn't a freshly-renovated building require less maintenance and be less likely to have problems?
• They never refute the claims that construction costs are lower now than they will be in the future, which lowers the project costs.
• They complain about the lack of community involvement in the process, which has been ongoing for three years and has included articles, blog posts, superintendent coffees in the morning, informational meetings with discussions at night, and two full election cycles that saw two outspoken supporters of the project win seats of the Board of Education. I think everyone has the right to air their views, but please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that lack of interest on doing so somehow taints the process. Should Maria Rice have offered wine and cheese to entice you, or would that just raise your tax-dollar-wasting hackles a bit more?

Lagusta Yearwood said that those in opposition can simply be ignored, and I wish I could agree. However, the people who complain about lack of community involvement are feeding inaccurate and incomplete information to people who are equally inattentive, and who might just cast an uninformed vote. I won't try to change somebody's mind but I sure as hell will make sure I correct any mistakes they are basing that decision on. The worst thing we can do for New Paltz education is allow ignorance to cast a vote.

My Rodriguez letter to the New Paltz Times

After writing about my initial reactions to Edgar Rodriguez' racism accusations I decided to dig deeper into the matter. I wrote a letter to the New Paltz Times about the subject, which I present here as well. I know that NPT has about a billion times' the readership of the Gadfly, but there's no reason to deprive to two or three who read here and not there. (I also hope this post lasts longer than the month or so they keep their letters online.)

As a white male, I realize that I'm not permitted to have an opinion which runs contrary to a claim of racism. So, I will allow others more qualified to speak on my behalf today.

Trustee Edgar Rodriguez made such claims at a recent Board of Education meeting. It's not the first time he's felt discriminated against; Rodriguez filed a suit against SUNY New Paltz in 1984 alleging the same. In that case, Rodriguez claimed that he was denied tenure because of his race, while the court felt that SUNY was consistent in requiring Mr. Rodriguez complete his Ph.D., like others are required to do, and so found no evidence of racial bias.

At the Board of Education meeting in question, after Trustee Rodriguez left, Trustee Daniel Torres thanked the district for the many opportunities he had received as a student and pointed out that he had, earlier that day, attended the Latino Leadership Luncheon at Marist College where he is a student. Trustee Torres, himself a Latino, apparently does not feel the same racial tensions as Trustee Rodriguez.

Racism is an ugly thing that should be addressed immediately and quashed completely wherever it is found. Still uglier is making a false claim of racism to cloud the issue of the middle school's renovation, because it gives bigots ammunition for hatred and devalues the experience of real victims.

I don't doubt that Trustee Rodriguez is presently getting a frosty reception from other board members, but perhaps he should apply Occam's Razor and discard other, more likely possibilities as to why, such as his battleground mentality and dissemination of incorrect information about the project to the public. I am glad that he is willing to express a minority view, but he should check his facts if he wants to have any credibility, and he certainly shouldn't assume racism just because he's not being listened to.

My next post will be on what I learned about the Undoing Racism course.

Where there's smoke . . .

About a month ago, the Village Planning Board reviewed an application for an unusual special use permit: two entrepreneurs want to turn the old Peak Performance building into a hookah and oxygen bar, combining the upscale tobacco scene of New York City with the purified oxygen venues popular in Los Angeles. A public hearing was set more than enough time in advance, and notice of the hearing was published in the local paper. The applicants didn't spring any last-minute information on the Board, and one could practically hear the crickets chirping at the meeting.

Last week the local paper covered the business, Zikibiki's, again as controvery finally stirred up.

Even with ventilator units, opponents of the hookah and oxygen bar are will worried about secondhand smoke, Prevention Connections Associate Director Heather Ohlson said.

Pity opponents weren't worried enough to show up at the public hearing, a vehicle designed to ensure that public concerns are addressed. In fact, member Thomas Rocco was very concerned about ventilation, and the Board required installation of a system which will be much more expensive than what the prevailing laws require.
Opponents are also suddenly concerned about the proximity to the Middle School - it's just a block away, and they feel this could encourage tobacco use among these impressionable youngsters in a way that the deli which sells cigarettes between the two locations doesn't.

On Zikibiki's Facebook group page, there are only a handful of comments. However, one comes from a teenage boy who asks "will this be the open to people of all ages, I would be very interested, but I'm 14."
For [Shari] Kanner that post alone proves that their point has merit. "There really is a concern about a 14-year-old smoking from a hookah."

Kanner may have been mollified if she spoken to the boy, like I did. Aaron Rudder is a New Paltz High School sophomore who speaks and writes eloquently, and plays several musical instruments. I asked Aaron about his comments on Zikibiki's page and his interest in the business. Turns out that Aaron has zero interest in using tobacco, ladies; he was asking because he's curious about the purified oxygen. Aaron points out on Zikibiki's group page that "according to New York State law, the only laws relating to tobacco, are that you cannot smoke indoors, and you must be 18 to purchase it" as opposed to an age restriction for admission, like bars use. His arguments are entirely in support of his interest in trying out the oxygen, something which took me about five minutes of work to determine.

When one puts together all the available information on this business, it's interesting to note that it appears the cart is driving the horse. A special use permit was approved, but the building itself still has a "for lease" sign in the window. This might be because there's no money yet to fund the project, as evidenced on the Facebook page, which is essentially a request for venture capital. A business selling tobacco near a school, but which doesn't have any money to mount a meaningful legal defense, is pretty low-hanging fruit to grab. Maybe if Susan Zimet had paid a fraction of that much of her attention to Woodland Pond, we'd have a senior community that wasn't a gigantic eyesore from ridge that draws most of New Paltz' tourist traffic.

People are asking why this went through so easily. Simply put, they followed the rules and didn't have a bunch of people lined up against them like the Main Course did. Public participation is vital to ensuring that a planning board makes the right decision for the community and within existing laws, and if no one raises a question it's much harder for the Planning Board to answer it.

One Week... Three Important Meetings

In the next week there are three VERY important events for New Paltz town/village/school district residents to attend.

Two involve the schools:

what: Superintendent Unveiling Early Draft of 09-10 School District Budget
when: Wednesday, February 4th, 7pm
where: High School Audion

what: Middle School Renovation Feasibility Study Presentation
when: Wednesday, February 11th, 7pm
where: High School Audion

more info at: http://www.newpaltz.k12.ny.us/newpaltz/site/default.asp
and... http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=59497249663#/event.php?eid=59497249663

One has to do with the Town Master Plan:

what: New Paltz Comprehensive Plan Public Workshop
when: Saturday, February 7th, 10am-12pm
where: SUNY New Paltz Student Union, Multi-purpose Room

more info at: http://www.townofnewpaltz.org and...
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=59497249663#/event.php?eid=58639699336

and if you are home right now and it is before 7pm on Monday, February 2nd... go check out the Martin Luther King Jr Day Celebration at SUNY New Paltz, Lecture Center 102

more info here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=59497249663#/event.php?eid=40279018289

So many meetings, so little time! The fun never ends!

Meet Me at the High School Manana!

Can you believe it has been nearly a year since the board voted to keep the Middle School where it is now? What progress has been made on the renovation project, really? And now, we have to be concerned that the funding for the project could be reallocated?!? Please come to tomorrow's school board meeting - Wednesday, January 14th, 7pm at the high school - to speak during public comment to help ensure the money for the Middle School Project stays intact. Or, just show up and be in the room -- our power is in our numbers!

To Plan or Not To Plan!

To plan or not to plan is not really the question. Of course we should plan! But, it strikes me as problematic that both our town and school district are having such a difficult time answering simple questions about what exactly they are planning and specifically how they are paying for it all.

Amid the ethics questions raised about Ken Wishnick’s new job as Town Planner, the question of precisely what the job will actually entail has been lost. As reported in the New Paltz Times, Mr. Wishnick himself is not really sure what the position involves. While the town has already approved this new position in the budget, and a civil service job description has been written, Wishnick states, “the town board will decide the role of the town planner and it has not yet done so.” How can this be so?

The town is not the only local elected body lacking a clear articulation of what a planner could do for them/us. The school district is considering hiring a consultant to create a long-term plan. I don’t mean to sound cute, but what exactly are we planning? We have a building inventory, and we have a forthcoming educational learning plan to be constructed by the superintendent. Is this long term planning a synthesis of these two documents? Or is it more? We need additional information about what a consultant will provide: Does this involve data that has already been compiled and/or that could clearly be assembled by existing staff? What existing studies (that are sitting on a shelf or otherwise) will be integrated into this planning? How come the superintendent and her staff are not assigned the task of conducting this type of planning? And what will a paid consultant value-add to this planning process, exactly?

There are a few things on this topic I feel pretty strongly about: One, I am concerned about shipping this job out to someone external to the inner workings of the district and our community. If this process is to move forward, we need to be clear, those that are most intimate with the data, that is, the teachers, staff, parents, and the community, must play an integral role. Perhaps the volunteer Building Level School Climate Action Teams, whose task will be completed in February, would be willing to stay on and work on this project. Given the state of the economy, any tasks that can be completed by current staff or volunteers should be done so in house (so to speak). Further, while the district plans, so does the Village and Town of New Paltz and the rest of the towns that are included in the district. Any planning project needs to include input and collaboration with these local municipalities.

Second, we need better projections for our school age population. In the board’s pamphlet handed out at the Middle School forums last winter, there is chart of the projections from 2008 to 2070 which show (within the margin of error) a tiny decline in student population and reads,

“The district has conducted multiple* demographic studies, which have revealed varied statistics. After careful examination and comparison of the various studies against actual figures, enrollment is projected to be approximately 2,200 to 2,300 students annually in the next five years.”

I would like to see a very simple, straightforward analysis of the projections of the school age population for at least the last ten years to see if the current source(s) for this information is reliable. As a parent of kindergarteners in 2005 and 2008, I am highly skeptical that the current sources are dependable. In 2005, kindergarteners found themselves in classrooms of 24-26 students because the estimates were off. This past May, an additional kindergarten class was added to the expected number for this past September when pre-registration showed the estimates to be low. In August, an additional third grade class was added at the very, very, very last minute (for the earlier cohort of 2005 kindergartens) because of the inaccuracy of the projections. As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” But I think we can do a better job. And, we need reliable data in order to move forward with a comprehensive plan.

Third, the Middle School location is non-negotiable. As reported in the New Paltz Times on December 11th, school board member Don Kerr, while supportive of hiring a consultant, was concerned with the time frame. If the study is to take eighteen months, “…what if the planner’s final report contradicted their decision to renovate the middle school? Kerr said he did not like that possibility.” Nor do I. Any district wide planning needs to be crystal-clear, the Middle School is staying put – this issue is absolutely not on the table. Last winter, our community (including the Village Boards and Town Boards) came out in full force to let the school board know that the Middle School – not just any one of our schools, but the Middle School – is to stay put. There is no wiggle room. (And the study needs to take a lot less time than eighteen months. As my dad use to say, “While you plan, it happens.”)

However, there are implications for the future of the Middle School site that impact the wider district. Two obvious ones are the location of the kitchen (there is only one kitchen that actually is suited to cook food, the rest merely distribute food, and the cooking kitchen is currently at the Middle School) and the old district office of which I don’t even know is possible to renovate and perhaps needs to be leveled. At the September meeting where Rhinebeck Associates, the firm hired to evaluate the Middle School, presented their work to date before the board, the firm was clear that they are only looking at the Middle School, not at the district as a whole. Is this a logical way to proceed? I am not sure, nonetheless I am not open to a process that will impede the guarantee of the Middle School staying put, along with the planning dollars promised to the endeavor. The Middle School is actually the only project even close to shovel-ready given the work already done by Rhinebeck Associates, which means we should be moving faster and focusing more on the Middle School since it is the only site realistically available for potential Obama stimulus dollars in the next year.

Which leads to my last point: Given the state budget cuts, how much money are we talking about and where will the district get the money for this service? It is my understanding that the money is proposed to be taken from a budget line that has been unmistakably allocated for study of the Middle School renovation, including an assessment of both the current status of the facilities and how to implement the actual renovation. It is unacceptable to use these dollars for different purposes. From the district website, the results of the vote to focus on the renovation of the Middle School are recapped:

“Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs* that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward.”

While only a portion of this budget line has been spent so far, that is, the initial fact finding portion: the state of the facilities, it is the only part that has been completed, and has not even been reported to the public yet. (FYI – scheduled for February 18th .) The remaining dollars are for the remaining stages – not just current status but implementation. Implementation dollars for the Middle School project should not and cannot be pilfered from this budget line.

If you would like the school board to hear your opinions on this matter, please attend their next meeting on January 7th, 7pm at the high school.

* Emphasis added

Relevant links: blog about the New Paltz Middle School