The Future of the Manor

My apologies for the long absence from this blog – life tends to get complicated. As a friend says, “So this is retirement, is it?” Yes, it is. But everything I'm up to is something I've always wanted to do.

I have some more detailed information regarding the proposed parking lot on East and Bugbee, and I've been working on a series of posts detailing some of the committee work I'm involved in. They'll be finished, and up on this blog, within a month or so. But I wanted to make sure I said a word or two about the Manor today.

At today's Board meeting, much was accomplished. We hired a new Personnel Director for the county; we set an end date for our involvement in MOSA (April 30, 2013), and took the first step toward changing the Representatives' term of office from two years to four (Public Hearing 9:30 AM, Wed. Sept. 5, in the Board Room). But most importantly, I think, we took the first step in solving what is, on one hand, an exceptionally expensive problem, and on the other hand, a crucial part of the lives of many of our friends and neighbors.

I'll be back with more details, and update them as time goes on, but the single most important number to consider when discussion the Manor is 6 million. That's how many dollars, give or take, it takes, from the County budget, to bridge the gap between the Manor's revenue and its expenses every year. This is an major burden on the Otsego County taxpayer which is unsustainable, especially since revenues (mostly Medicaid and Medicare) are being reduced each year, and expenses are increasing.

The Manor Committee and Director Ed Marchi laid out options for the full Board this morning. They ran the gamut between making no changes and selling the building, with a couple of combination sale/lease options in the middle. The Board voted unanimously to negotiate a contract with a highly qualified consultant to lead us through the process and negotiate any changes we decide on.

As I said, more details later. But here's the bottom line for most, if not all, citizens of the County:

Public Health law prohibits us from displacing any residents of the Manor against their will, ever. So if the Manor is sold to an entity intending to use it for something other than a nursing home, they can't have it until every patient is placed, by their own choice. If they choose to stay, they can stay for the rest of their life. This makes the Manor unattractive to prospective buyers who want to use it for something else, and makes that kind of sale very improbable. But regardless of what the final disposition of the Manor is, current residents get to stay as long as they choose to.

We, the Board, affirmed our commitment to patient care as our first priority, and whatever happens, the quality of care will be our first priority in choosing among alternatives. At no point will the process be out of the Board's hands, so your Representative is the point person for questions, concerns and suggestions.

We all know how important it for the folks who live at the Manor to continue to be assured that their home will not be taken from them or changed substantially. We have an obligation to provide them with that assurance for as long as they choose to live there, and the Board is committed to doing that. Today, we started the process that will lead us to that goal, without having to continue to pay the massive subsidy required for the County to own and operate the buiding.

Fracking Black Holes

Like most of us, I have been trying to maintain a steep learning curve regarding fracking, so when the time comes to make a decision in one arena or another, I'll be working with enough facts to make a knowledgeable choice. As I've been filling in the picture, two things stand out – two things that seem not to be addressed, and that seem to be central to the whole issue:

• What do people mean when they talk about finding out if fracking is 'safe?' For the most part, they mean that there is a high probability that wells will not fail and pollute the water table. That, it seems, is not the point – the 'high probability' part. 98%, for instance, is a high probability, but assurances that 98% of the wells in Otsego County, or New York State, or anywhere, will be safe, means that two of every one hundred wells will damage people's drinking water. With wells that will number in the tens of thousands, 98% isn't nearly good enough. Nothing short of a guaranteed 100% can even start the discussion.
• Pro-fracking activists are aiming in the wrong direction. If they really want to make a compelling case to the people of New York, they need to convince the guardians of the New York City and Syracuse water systems (and to NYC mayor Bloomberg) that drilling will pose no danger to their water, ever. If they can do that (and they obviously haven't), then perhaps we can start the discussion (the EPA insists that the exemption is because NYC and Syracuse use unfiltered water – but how can filtered water systems remain safe, if we don't know what's in the fluids, so we don't know what we need to filter out – or whether it's even possible to filter it all out?).

I asked the folks at the County Planning Department (Karen Sullivan and Psalm Wyckoff) about the parking lot today, and they were generous with their time and very helpful. Karen made some calls later on and filled in some blanks. It seems it's a three-part story.

(People who work with planning, zoning and code enforcement speak their own language, fluently and swiftly, and it's a language that I don't speak, yet, so some of the vocabulary may be misplaced or inaccurate.)

The land being developed for the parking lot straddles the town-city line, so the code inspectors and Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in both municipalities are involved. In both the town and the city, the original application for permits was denied, but the ZBA in the City approved a use variance. The Town ZBA has deemed the application incomplete, so no decision has been made there. So at this point, the project is not approved. It's not clear whether the project can go ahead in the city section without the whole thing being approved by both municipalities.

The County gets involved if a project is within 500' of a municipal boundary, and this one fits because it's right on a municipal boundary. However, this is where it gets interesting: the project began, apparently, as a collection of townhouses, and it was sent to the County at that point, about two years ago. Now that the plans have changed, it's not clear whether the City or the town will request that the County look at the project and then make recommendations.  The County's rulings in these cases are usually focused on whether the project in one municipality will cause an undue burden on the neighboring municipality, and these rulings are only recommendations; they have no authority over the municipality's final decision.  When the County is asked to get involved (and it only gets involved when a municipality requests it), it can do one of four things: approve, disapprove, approve with modifications, or decline to rule because no significant impact has been found.

And finally, the City Code Enforcement office is asking DEC to become involved with the project; more on this as time goes on.

Overall, this project is raising a lot of questions. Apparently, the plan is to market the parking spaces to freshmen for long-term parking, although whether there is a sufficient market to make the project pay is one of those questions. The owner is hoping to get OPT to stop there – but where? It's a busy, residential corner, and for most of the project's length, East Street has a 45 mph speed limit. Not a great place for buses to stop every fifteen minutes.

Anyway, more to come. At least we can be assured that there are people in the middle of this who are asking the right questions. If you want to take more action, contact:

•  your City Councilman  
•  your Town Board member
•  the Town of Oneonta Planning Board and ZBA 

The Parking Lot

I've gotten a number of calls and e-mails regarding the planned parking lot at the top of East St., where Bugbee Rd. and Meadowbrook Lane intersect it. The vacant lots on that corner, on either side of Meadowbrook Lane, have been bulldozed and graded recently, in preparation for what the owner hopes will be a lot for long-term parking for 300+ student cars.

Everyone who contacted me had concerns about the project, concerns that I share. Many questions are unanswered: questions about foot traffic crossing East St. and traveling through neighborhoods, security, lighting, runoff (and many other environmental concerns), increased traffic, and others.

I went to City Hall to talk with Robert Chiappisi, city Code Enforcement Officer, last week. Many factors make this a complex issue. The land is part in the City, and part in the Town, which (usually but not always) means that the County gets involved. The project has been given a preliminary variance, but each step requires approval, and Mr. Chiappisi, who will be making the decisions about those approvals, has grave concerns about the project as well.

I'll be at the Meadows for a committee meeting on Friday, and I'll stop in at the County Planning Department office and see if I can learn anything more about how this all works, and what's in store for that neighborhood. I'll let you know what I learn, here at the weblog. Stay tuned.

MOSA Letter

If you were down to the Oneonta MOSA transfer station in March, you might have been handed a letter from the Executive Director of MOSA, Dennis Heaton, listing reasons why he thought Otsego County's plan to depart from MOSA was a bad idea – specifically, because it will cost Otsego County citizens a lot more to dispose of their trash: “In summary, Otsego County citizens will pay substantially more if Otsego departs MOSA.”

I don't know about you, but I don't think this was a good idea – especially since Mr. Heaton didn't inform the MOSA Board that he was going to distribute a one-sided argument on an important and complex topic to whoever showed up at the transfer station. There are better ways to get your point across, in our media-rich world. Worse, it turns out that his facts were cherry-picked and incomplete; he did not mention, in many instances, many of the MOSA expenditures which would occur even if Otsego County remained with the Authority.

Cathy Clark, the Otsego County Board Chair, wrote to Mr. Heaton, outlining the errors in his presentation, and calling his attempt to 'impugn' and 'undermine' a member county of the Authority 'regrettable.' I'd be glad to send you a copy of it if you'd like to read it, especially if you've seen Mr. Heaton's letter.

The truth is, we don't know the details of how everything is going to work out. The County Board decided to leave MOSA well before I arrived, and everything I've heard convinces me that it was a good decision. It's a decision we're going to stick with, and I think it's going to turn out well for the citizens of Otsego County.

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!