Child Safety Zone law

I have to agree with the majority on the Public Safety Committee (a standing Committee of the County Board), who this week voted to recommend that Otsego County's Child Safety Zone law be rescinded. It seems that the law – which forbids registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of any school, school bus stop, day care center, youth center, swimming pool, or any “public or commercial recreational facility clearly designed to attract children” - is probably unconstitutional. In fact, a number of other similar laws, passed in other NY counties, have been challenged in court; the county lost every time, and no county has appealed, suggesting that their claim to constitutionality was not strong.

Regardless of whether it it's constitutional or not, it doesn't make a lot of sense, except on an emotional level. There's no research anywhere suggesting that this kind of law has any effect on recidivism; we can't prove that it keeps any children safe. Anyone can travel a thousand feet – or, for that matter, ten miles – from where they live to where children congregate.

What they can't do, given the law as it now stands, is live in most Otsego County housing. A thousand feet is nearly a quarter mile, and if you draw a circle around every school, park, daycare and (especially) school bus stop, there's not much left. Especially in small towns where housing clusters around the school. And in a rural county, where school buses stop at nearly every house, even options outside of town are limited. Just think about the geography of District 11, here in the First and Second Wards: try and picture the map, and find a house or apartment more than 1,000 feet from a park or a school, or Bugbee, or the SUCO playing fields.

Given the nature of the offense, it is appropriate for some sex offenders to incur further restrictions on their liberty after their prison sentence is over; our public safety officials assure us that this is done with energy and effectiveness. But to make it almost impossible for any of them to find adequate, stable housing seems to assume that none of them will become productive, contributing citizens, and thus can be marginalized and dismissed.

This debate brings to mind the capital punishment issue: in both cases, a draconian punishment is applied not because it will change behavior or promote anyone's safety, but because it will be emotionally satisfying to a large portions of the citizenry This aspect has its value – but it also has its consequences.

E-911 Addresses

Some folks on Forest Ave. have contacted me about letters they received from the E-911 system, informing them that they had to change their house numbers. I spoke with the Sheriff a couple of weeks ago, and he assured me that these changes have been put on indefinite hold.

As you may know, the E-911 system was moved to the Sheriff's office in November, and they are still adjusting to some of the changes that were taking place as the transition occurred. As of now, however, it's important that numbers don't change on houses, stationery, bills, databases, etc.

The Daily Star goes into this in a little more detail here.

Mandates and their Relief

My wife and I own some land in Lewis County, NY, and when we got the tax bill this year, attached to it was a one-page “Truth in Taxation Report.” Sent out in accordance with new County legislation, the report is, it says, “...designed to provide a legal mechanism to ensure that citizens receive accurate tax bill information on State Mandated Programs and the effects on County Budget. State Mandates are established by the State, with no County input, and are paid for through the property tax.”

There follows a list of eight major Lewis County programs required by NY State law, and the cost of each. The total (over 11 million dollars for a county more rural than Otsego) is provided, and then the kicker: this total accounts for 90% of the entire tax levy.

Enthusiastic capitalization notwithstanding, this is an intriguing report, and the clarity of its presentation makes a clear and cogent point. I attended an all-day workshop for new County legislators a couple of weeks ago (presented expertly by the NY State Association of Counties (NYSAC)), and heard a lot about state mandates; 90% seems pretty typical, but one of the suburban counties south of us (Rockland, I think) was up to 120%. 

 

Many programs and processes required of counties in NY are reimbursed by the state, but many are not; it's not clear whether Lewis County's 90% was made up entirely of the latter, but either way, this is an important point. In most counties, Medicaid comprises the largest of these items (by far), and the county taxpayer would be justified in scratching his/her head and asking, “But I though Medicaid was a Federal program?”

It is, but states pay up to half the bill, for reasons I don't have room to go into here. And for other reasons, even more obscure and complex, only about half of the states require Counties to pitch in. According to a National Association of Counties 2010 report, New York counties pay many times more (a total of over $6 billion) than the counties of any other state – including California, whose overall Medicaid bill is half as much again as New York's.

The Governor's budget, being negotiated right now, includes what has been touted as 'mandate relief,' but, in these tough times, the dollar amounts are relatively small. Counties won't be paying less for anything, as it stands now; however, increases in the various bills will be capped (and, in the case of Medicaid, eliminated), eventually.

All this has an impact on Otsego County's budgeting process, and eventually on the tax bill we all pay. We can't cut mandated services, whatever we think of them, and so we need to look elsewhere. “Elsewhere” is getting smaller and smaller. Saying that 90% of the tax levy is mandated services is fudging the whole truth a little bit, but overall, the impact is substantial and is a major issue for us to address in the coming years.

By the way, if you want to let your NY State legislators know how you feel about this, here's where to do it:

Governor Andrew Cuomo's website

NY State Senator Jim Seward's website

NY Assemblyman Jim Magee's website 
and/or use NYSAC's simple form letter 

Month and a Half In

It's been a fascinating time, this last month and a half. Starting with the (for me, at least) moving and exciting swearing-in (actually, I was sworn in three times; long story), our first Pledge of Allegiance (“...and liberty and justice for all!”), and the seven-ballot Chair voting (which, I think, has turned out extremely well), a lot of the work has turned out to be routine. With the exception of those Chair ballots, and the resolution supporting home rule for gas drilling regulation, the vast majority of the resolutions that have come before the Board have been passed unanimously.

Committee meetings, so far, have been routine, as well; I'm on the Human Services and Health & Education Committees, both of which I requested (thanks, Cathy!). I must compliment every Department director and commissioner for their graceful willingness to outline, for us newbies, the scope and function of their Department's work. I also had the opportunity to attend six hours of workshops designed to orient new employees (and new Board members) to the Department of Social Services. I've had a number of contacts from other Department heads, offering to do the same. Everyone's been friendly and eager to help, which I appreciate immensely.

There are some important issues that will challenge us this year: the post-MOSA world; hydrofracking home rule (however it comes out on the State level); the sex-offender housing law; next year's budget, and whatever surprises await us. I'll do my best to report on these and other county issues as they occur.

The Housing Summit

It's been a while since I last posted – there's a lot happening, and I've been out of town a lot. I'll be updating a few times in the next few days.

Yesterday morning I walked down to Center Street Elementary to take part in the Mayor's Housing Summit. The gymnasium was packed; they had to to bring out a lot more chairs. Great coffee and donuts from Foti's. We were homeowners, landlords, tenants, government officials, realtors, and everyone had a lot to say.

We addressed a handful of questions ranging from fully using the upper floors of downtown buildings to improving the living conditions of seniors. Plans were made for subgroups to go deeper into each challenging area. More to come on this.

To my ears, there was a subtext that was a little disturbing. A lot of conversation revolved around student housing and (less explicitly) low-income neighborhoods. There seemed to be an assumption that living near either group was undesirable, and that high concentrations of either group made development of owner-occupied homes more difficult. Statistics regarding property values may bear this out, and there seemed to be general agreement that they diminish the quality of life in the vicinity. Owner-occupied housing, it appeared, located a discreet distance from student and low-income housing, was the gold standard.

Not that anyone came right out and said this. So – I could be wrong. Explicit or not, this is undoubtedly a widely held approach to the housing questions in any city.

Most of you know where I live – on Center St., next to the creek. We have student houses on two sides, and one of those houses rents to baseball campers in the summer. A lot of folks in difficult circumstances live within a block or two. We're happy to have all of them as neighbors. The only noise problem we've ever had here was when the City put that pump in the creek.

We're all going to be living here in Oneonta for a long time, and it's really too small a town for robust homogenous neighborhoods. For us, that's a good thing. We like the diversity all around us. At the Summit, I talked some with a landlord who owns a lot of student housing, and he was very clear about the standard of behavior he imposes on any renter who wants to stay. It works. Most students are good neighbors, and there are ways to assure that they all are. Poor folks want to live in nice places, in good neighborhoods, just as much as everyone else; sometimes, they just need a little help – or opportunity.

So I'd like to see the work started yesterday to move toward ways of coming together and living cooperatively in the City, and not toward ways of distancing ourselves from each other. I've got some ideas along those lines, so – more to come!