Friday, December 15, 2006

Westchester Disabled on Move expresses concern about Ardsley site for Bd of Elections

Last week I reported that the Ardsley School district expressed concerns about the proposed move of the Board of Elections from White Plains to 440 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley. The major concern school officials had was the loss of taxes. When the county purchases a building the property becomes tax exempt. Frank Harrington, a school board member, also raised an interesting issue: the lack of accessibility of the site to people with disabilities. The building is set back from the street, has hilly topography and the path from the street to the entrance is too steep to be considered accessible.
I wrote to some organizations that advocate for the disabled. Mel Tanzman, Executive Director of Westchester Disabled on the Move, conducted a site visit. He determined that the objections were valid. I hope that the county looks elsewhere.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a total tangent, but...

I would consider the "multipurpose" center in Veteran's park to also be inaccessible. Stop by on a weekday and see these frail eldery people climbing up the big hill to get into the center to participate in those activities. In the winter, it's almost like a mini-mountain getting in there. The construction and planning of that building is a blog entry waiting to happen.

Anonymous said...

It's nice to live in a town that cares about the disabled. My neighbor's kid takes advantage of the recreation programs for the disabled and loves it. I want to thank Supervisor Feiner for contacting disabled advocacy groups about the Bd of Elections possible new location.

Anonymous said...

What would be the precise functions of the Saw Mill River Road location?

If it's just for storage and behind-the-scenes offices (which is what I thought it was for), then the accessibility matter is not particularly relevant. I didn't have the sense that the site would be used for general public (voter registration and such); I thought those functions were staying in White Plains.

Please check and clarify.

Paul Feiner said...

The proposed plan would have moved the entire Board of Elections to Ardsley. Candidates for office, campaign workers, citizens visit the Board of Elections during the course of the campaign season for a variety of reasons

Anonymous said...

If the entire operations would be moving, then the plan should be scrapped even just for the reason that 9A isn't too traffic-friendly a location, or even convenient for most Westchester residents to get to.

But if it turns out that it will be used for storage and obscure offices, then there's really no grounds for protest.

Anonymous said...

hea,

Ardsley has the 300K per year from elmsford for the library -- I dont think they should mind a county building in ardlsly. as to traffic, if 9A is such a problem, whey did they sign the library contract with elmsford.

Anonymous said...

so the county could move the machine storage (which is most of the needed space)to ardsley and just have an office elsewhere

Anonymous said...

"as to traffic, if 9A is such a problem, whey did they sign the library contract with elmsford"

Because they're contiguous school districts, and there were no other feasible options. The next closest library would be Tarrytown's, but that's too far.

Paul Feiner said...

To: ANonymous 5:49-- Ardsley schools are not benefitting from the Elmsford contract. Elmsford is contracting with the Ardsley village. THey are separate. THe Ardsley school district serves both the unincorporated section of Greenburgh and the villages of Dobbs Ferry & Ardsley (DF is a small portion of the school district)

Anonymous said...

Ok Paul, I realize that the Ardsly SD and the Ardsly FD and the Ardsley Village are not coterminus. But many people are in all three. But ardsley people are the favored ones in greenburgh

Anonymous said...

How are residents of Ardsley considered favored in Greenburgh? We can't use a pool located in our own town, we have no parking rights at any of the train stations, and we have to deal with the traffic nightmares that our neighboring towns have dealt us. If we in Ardsley are favored, it's because of the superior village management team, led by supermayor Jay Leon!

Anonymous said...

As a resident of unincorporated Greenburgh, I must admit that I am a bit jealous of Ardsley "because of the superior village management team" that is lacking in unincorporated Greenburgh. Maybe Ardsley should be the town; or maybe the Ardsley mayor could be our Supervisor. It's increasingly embarrassing to live in unincorporated Greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

Ardsley wouldnt want to be the Town, they want to be the village and have the unincorporated area pay for everything

Anonymous said...

I am glad that Supervisor Feiner has been helping the Ardsley school district and disabled community. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

"they want to be the village and have the unincorporated area pay for everything"

Hey, can you blame them? If we choose to stick with this old fashioned town/village set-up, then Ardsley would just be making smart business decisions by having "the unincorporated area pay for everything."

Anonymous said...

No, it is Feiner pandering to the majority of the voters (the village residents) -- only the courts will set it right.

Anonymous said...

What the courts need to do is completely disband this concept of Greenburgh as it currently is. Just make one city called Greenburgh - period - to consist of what is currently the school systems of Edgemont and Greenburgh.

The unincorporated areas outside the two main school districts should be acquired by those villages, and the villages should be allowed to do their own thing (separately or by merging with neighboring villages), without the hinderance of an antiquated township concept.

I just feel bad for Edgemont that would still have to be stuck as being part of the City of Greenburgh. Though maybe Scarsdale would accept Edgemont as a village.

Doing such would make things so much more normal and efficient.