White Plains recently increased parking fees at the White Plains library. When the Greenburgh library opens many White Plains residents and people from around the county might want to use our new library. The Greenburgh library, which is being paid for by Greenburgh residents ($20 million) will be a county asset, not only a Greenburgh asset.
A suggestion: Greenburgh residents should get a free parking pass to use the library. Meters should also be placed at the parking spots. Non residents should put coins in the meter -equivalent to municipal rates elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
How would we distinguish between residents and non-residents. If the answer is parking permits, I would not be willing spend time applying for a parking permit and defiling my car so that I can save a few cents when I visit the library.
I understand the rationale, but it would be a huge undertaking and not worth the effort.
good idea
I do not think this is a ggod idea.Yonkers,Scarsdale,Ardsley,and Dobbs Ferry do not charge. White plains charges for all parking.If our library is going to have a coffee stand why not make some money off the coffee and other sales which will draw people in instead of turnig them off by charging for parking. Bad gimmick.
a county asset? if so, why is it being paid for solely by unincorporated greenburgh?
bernstein is right. taxation in greenburgh is unfair.
the supervisor's suggestion doesnt begin to address the funding problem.
ps - feiner's campaign flyers about berstein and taxes were just found to be misleading
Dobbs Ferry charges for parking.
Forget about permits,coin meters will do .
One must think ahead not just for today.
You will find that many people will park their cars to run errands at close by locations.
When the medical center opens you will also find peple parking in the library lot.
There will be wear and tear on the asphalt from time to time that wil need repairs.
Make the right decision now because you know dam well it will be hard to make a change.
Meters yes permits no.
Meters will bring in some revenue needed for some upkeep later on.
You have to plan on saving taxes somewhere along the line .This will be a small amount of savings but it is a start.
The Library is not a county asset. What Feiner presumably meant is that under the inter-library system, if a library within Westchester County, say in Ossining, doesn't have a book but the Greenburgh library does have it, it is lent to the Ossining library for the resident who applies for it. That is also true for a Greenburgh resident who wants a book that Greenburgh doesn't have but that another library in Westchester, say North Caste, has. It is a great system that saves every library money because they don't all have to buy all available books.
The inter-library regulations also permit any Westchester resident to use any library in Westchester. That doesn't mean, however, that an Ossining resident will drive down to Greenburgh for its library, or that an Edgemont resident would drive to Tarrytown for its library -- that would be nuts. As a practical matter, residents of towns and villages use their own libraries, and have the benefir of the inter-library lending arrangements.
But each municipality pays for its own library, as they should. Under N. Y. law, the Greenburgh library has to be paid for by unincorporated Greenburgh taxpayers. Nothing wrong with that. They don't pay for the libraries whose books are lent to Greenburgh for Greenburgh residents.
Bernstein is wrong. He usually is.
This suggestion could keep our taxes down. Good idea!
Unincorporated Greenburgh pays for its library because racist town officials from the town's villages (including two villages which back then had no library of their own) refused back in 1960 to fund a racially integrated town-wide library.
They also refused to let unincorporated area residents from Fairview, most of whom were African American, use the four village libraries then in existence. And because of the same racial prejudice, town leaders (dominated by the villages) refused to contract with any neighboring libraries, such as the White Plains library.
The only recourse African American residents of Greenburgh had, if they wanted a library, was to get the state legislature to give Greenburgh special permission to establish its own library. The state legislature did so, but because of rcial prejudice, it did so only on condition that the villages didn't have to pay for it. Back then the prejudice was so rampant that two of the town's villages, Ardsley and Elmsford, didn't even have libraries, but they were still excused from having to pay for the town's library.
It's amazing that racist laws in New York like the one that established Greenburgh's library are still on the books today.
ZIP code boundaries and school district boundaries also remind us of Greenburgh's extremely racist past. Like the library, it's unfortunate that no one has taken initiative to make changes.
The so-called Finneran Law, which allows the town and the villages to maintain separate parks and recreational facilities, is part of the same racist Greenburgh tradition.
Village residents didn't want African Americans from Fairview traipsing through their Hudson River parks. Their racism was so rampant that they also wouldn't permit the town to establish parks and recreational facilities that African Americans could use unless village residents were excused from having to pay for them.
The Finneran Law is just another vivid reminder of Greenburgh's extremely racist past.
How do you check if someone parking at a spot has a permit or not ? A person ? Cameras ? Forget about it! Stay with the meters.
The comments of racism and mis-treatment of African Americans here, sounds like someone venting out of context. This is about (meter) parking fees at the library. Duh !
The population of library users that would be most adversely affected by imposing parking fees at the library for non-residents of unincorporated Greenburgh would be the lower income mostly African American population that lives along the Route 119 corridor in the Village of Elmsford. The Greenburgh library, when it reopens, will once again be the closest library these folks can use.
The person who wrote at 8:14 PM yesterday under the pseudonym "Greenburgh's library's ugly racist origin" and who is undoubtedly the same person who wrote today at 8:29 AM under the pseudonym "Anonymous" is, in my opinion, the ever-present Bob Bernstein.
Why do I think so? Because these ugly comments are straight out of the briefs Bernstein filed in the Taxter Ridge case last spring. The Town and the village mayors had referred to the law relating to the financing of the library, and since that law undercut Bernstein's arguments about the parks he argued that the library law was based on a racist past, and that it was necessary to finance the library in unincorporated Greenburgh to overcome racial hostilities -- an especially vile lie.
Bernstein, the master of divisiveness, is now doing it by playing the race card and doing it without any justification at all.
What next?
Paul have meters installed to bring in some revenue.
Permits are not for open parking without gates.
There are enough police persons to enforce the meter parking.
If this works good in other municipalities why cant it work here in Greenburgh.
Herb Rosenberg himself seems to be a relic out of Greenburgh's racist past. Dobbs Ferry, where Rosenberg lives, still doesn't allow African Americans from Fairview to use its precious Hudson River parks.
Well, that blog at 11:45 does what the anonymous cowards frequently do -- they invent and distort facts for the purpose of using insults when the facts don't suit them. This coward stretches a number of facts.
He says that "Dobbs Ferry, where Rosenberg lives still doesn't allow African Americans from Fairview to use its precious Hudson River parks." That has one non-sequitor and one bit of slander. The non-sequitor is the notion my residence has anything whatever to do with his assertion, even if it were true, which it is not. The slander is the statement that Dobbs Ferry keeps Fairview African-Americans out of its Hudsomn River park -- a slander because until recently the Hudson River park was open to Dobbs Ferry residents only (like Veteran Park is open only to unincorporated area residents)and was closed to everyone else. Of course asa far as the residents-only rule, being an African American from Fairview was exacly the same as being a white demagogue from Edgemont. And even that residents-only policy has recently been changed.
He says that I am a relic out of Greenburgh's racist past. If that isn't the craziest, most desperate, statement, I can't imagine what is.
This is so typical of the Bernstein clique. Since the facts don't suport their anger they use insults and demonization instead. And idiocy.
Rosenberg's obsession with Bernstein makes it very hard to take seriously anything Rosenberg says.
That said, Rosenberg seems to be fighting very hard for the right of village residents not to pay their fair share for social services that the town offers to low income families townwide, including low income families from the villages. Many of these families are African American.
Maybe in Rosenberg's mind, his position is not racist, but it sure sounds racist to me.
Why is Rosenberg fighting so hard to make sure the town keeps its parks and recreational facilities segregated from the villages.
According to the Dobbs Ferry village code, nonresidents are still not allowed to use its parks, and he'd evidently like to keep it that way.
Section 230-9, entitled, "No Trespassing," says:
"Except as an invited attendant at or a participant in events scheduled by the village through an authorized agency, all persons who are nonresidents of the village are hereby prohibited from entering upon any public park of the village unless the nonresidents are guests of and accompanied by residents of the village."
And don't think the Hudson River parks are any exception. Far from being a state treasure for all New York residents to enjoy, the Hudson in Dobbs Ferry is limited to residents only.
Section 230-15 of the Dobbs Ferry code has this to say about that under its "Riverfront Regulations":
"All persons who are nonresidents of the village are hereby prohibited from entering the beach and offshore area, including the boat mooring facilities, adjacent to Waterfront Park in the Hudson River, either by boat or otherwise, without the consent of the Board of Trustees, unless they are guests of and accompanied by residents of the village. Requests for use of Waterfront Park by nonresident individuals or groups may be acted upon by the Mayor only in instances where time is of the essence."
Perhaps there are those in Greenburgh who, like Rosenberg, like to think of this as a legitimate exercise of "village rights."
In the Deep South in the '50s and '60s, they used to call that sort of restriction a legitimate exercise of "state's rights."
It's still racist, though, no matter what you call it.
Confused here. Im asian (my wife is caucasian) and we live in Hastings. WE cannot use parks in dobbs or irvington because we are not residents. This may be tawdry and small minded, but its clearly not racist.
Confused about Greenburgh's racism? Don't be.
Next time you're at the Hastings library, check out the New York Times from the 1950s. You'll find story after story about how these "residents-only" restrictions were being adopted by villages throughout Westchester County along the Hudson River and the Long Island Sound in an effort to keep residents of Yonkers, the Bronx and Mount Vernon, most of whom were African American (the stories referred to them as "Negroes," from using their village parks and recreational facilities.
If you were fortunate enough to be living in Hastings back then -- and you had to be fortunate because not everyone was allowed to buy a house there at the time -- you could use Hastings own waterfront parks. You didn't need the parks in Dobbs Ferry or Irvington.
But if you took the train up from Yonkers and the Bronx, you weren't allowed. That was the point.
For a while the mantra was "tens of thousands of dollars from developers." Then the mantra changed to "WestHELP" as the catch-all answer to everything. Now the mantra seems to be racism as the justification for arguing budget disputes.
I said some time ago that there is no point answering those who distort logical discussion by throwing these mantras around. I should have stuck to my initial resolve. So no more from me -- let the race-baiters continue. Nobody takes them seriously anyway.
Nobody should take Rosenberg seriously.
Sorry Rosenberg knows what he's talking about.
Isn't it funny when people tell the truth they are not believed but those who constantly lie but they are believed.
pAUL GO THE METER ROUTE AT THE LIBRARY PARKING LOT.
We have enough police personnel that could monitor the lot.
why should anyone believe herg "white lie" rosenberg?
rosenberg cannot answer the racist origins of the exclusivity of the parks in dobbs ferry. so he just takes his ball with him and leaves the field like a child.
as was recently noted in a letter to the enterprise, the exclusionary practices in the rivertowns regarding their parks is tawdry.
Who does Rosenberg speak for? He is not elected to anything and heads no civic association. He comes off as an angry bitter old man at war with the present and especially the future who wants to seal himself off from the world and be alone in his shtetl.
Herb, you have it all wrong. No one takes you seriously. And thats no white lie.
Bernstein is a civic association leader.and he happens to be the biggest racist.
He only acknowledges his own and is against the rest.
So being a civic leader means didleysquat.
Rosenberg is not a racist ,it's only in your sick mind.
Get real and do the math about parking meters!
Basic assumptions:
100 metered spaces
$.75 per hour charge
40 hours per week the meters are in effect (that assumes evenings and weekends are free - a reasonable assumption because to hire an enforcement person for overtime hours is economically infeasible)
52 weeks per year
IF the lot were full every minute the meters are in force the maximum revenue from the meters would be $156,000 -
Purchasing the meters would require an initial expense of how much? At $500 per meter the expense would be $50,000, nearly 1/3 the MAXIMUM revenues
Maintaining the meters isn't cheap - a service contract covering maintenance might be as little as $1 per meter per week -
an expense in excess of $5,200 per year for the lot
Hiring someone, even a part-timer at a nominal wage of $6 per hour for coverage only when the meters are in force adds more than another $24,000 to the expenses -
Under optimum conditions the anticipated revenues are less than $60,000 or something on the order of less than 1/10 of 1% of the Town's annual budget - a figure which approaches insignificance.
a sick mind - wow - what an observation
the biggest racist - thats pure genious
did you by chance live in mayfair knollwood - now they know their racism
for perhaps you're from herb rosenberg's island - they know how to exclude people on that jut of land
when the courts rule that taxing one part of the town for a park open to all, herb rosenberg will fade into further obscurity.
"a figure which approaches insignificance" ... just like this topic ... insignificant in comparison to all the current neglect of municipal services
What makes you think that the court will rule that all residents throughout the town of Greenburgh must pay for the parks.
Do we pay or contribute to all the parks and sidewalks in Greenburgh.
Every village takes care of their own.
Since the town accepted monies from the county and state all will be using the parks.
Dear Do the math,
You forgot to add in the cost involved to collect, sort, package & deposit the collected meter revenues.
Also, you forgot to mention that all of the costs involved will be offset by the collected FINES. The money collected for fines will go to who?????? Surely the Town, unless of course, Paul has a plan to create a special department at the court to distinguish who get what money from which parking violations.
Do these hair brained schemes just get tossed out here for entertainment purposes?
one court has already ruled all town taxpayers including those in the villages must pay for taxter ridge park which is located in unincorporated greenburgh. this ruling is on appeal. a decision is not expected for several months. in the interim, the appellate court on its own has raised an issue of the constitionality of charging only unincorporated residents for parks in the town open to all residents.
common sense tells us that if you can use it, you have to pay for it.
in other words, there is no free lunch.
Anon 6:11 says "common sense tells us that if you can use it, you have to pay for it."
Really? If a doctor sends you some medical information that you didn't ask for, even if you find that information helpful, do you have to pay for what he sends you? If a lawyer gives you legal information that you didn't ask for, does he have the right to send you a bill?
The villages specifically didn't ask to be included in the town park system. If the town decides to open the parks on their own, do the villagers have to pay for the parks? In fact, since the town has offered to open its parks to people outside the town, do other towns have to pay for Greenburgh parks?
See how ridiculous your statement is. It's not common sense at all.
so i guess you believe there is such a thing as a free lunch. the town (via the town board) purchases a park. the town board is elected by everyone including taxpayers in the villages. the town park is open to everyone. how is it logical (or fair) that the park is paid for by only by those residents who live in unincorporated greenburgh.
there are national parks in hawaii and alaska - i probably will never use them but i have to pay for them under our elected form of government. if access is restricted, then i dont have to pay for it (as in veteran park). but where the town board has decided to open the parks to everyone, then everyone has to pay.
its really very simple. if you dont like that system, close the parks, restrictaccess to the parks or sell the parks. or elect new board members who will do the above.
your free literature example is absurd. we are talking here about parks bought and operated under an elected system of government.
Do we really need Taxter ridge parkland.Why can't we get with the county and state to sell this land to a developer this way the property will be put on the tax role.
By doing this more revenue will be coming into Greenburgh,via the sale ,permits and taxes.
The property ,the way it stands now is of no use to anyone.
Much revenue is needed to make this into a workable park.
If there is some way to sell this property I'm sure taxpayers throughout will be happy in saving some monies.
Whomever voted for the purchase ,will never see anything done for park use.
I'm sure Trump will be interested in developing this parcel.
Greenburgh has too many parks and because of this our taxes will go higher and higher each year.
There happens to be too too much maintenance money going to keep these parks in some what good condition.
The parklands are stealing all our money.
We have reach a point in life where town officials have to see where and how money can be saved to help out all the residents.
Taxes constantly go up each year and employment is going up for some residents.
How many homes are going into foreclosure?
What has the town officials done to help?
They keep spending big bucks for lawyers,engineers and consultants this expense costs mega bucks,
Who pays we the taxpayers.
We choose to live here to give our children a good life but at what expense.
Both parents have to work maybe at two or three jobs to pay the bills.
Yes I believe some parkland should be sold to help us enjoy the fruits of our hard works.
How many homes are in foreclosure here in Greenburgh?
How about listing them for quick sales.
Instead of thinking about housing the volunteers throughout ,sell the properties so that we could see some sunlight in the horizon.
You now have to look at ways to save to make living here available to all,not just the rich.
The town now owns the waterwheel property in ARdsley. This property is just sitting there doing nothing. it generates no taxes. Its a drain. Do something with it.
Thank you to the poster of "greenburgh library's ugly racist origins" for a fascinating and enlightening post. Unfortunately, such unspoken policies exist in our communities today. When Scarsdale posts "residents only" signs in the playgrounds in the Fisher hill neighborhood abutting White Plains, who exactly are they targeting? A Hartsdale resident, I've used those playgrounds many times with the daughters and I've never been stopped. I strongly suspect that if i wasn't white, the welcome might be different. Also, all discussions regarding the Greenburgh Central are underlaced with many layers of unspoken connotation and nuance. There is no reason for other posters to be defensive about policies established to enforce de facto segregation: this has been an aspect of American life throughout its history.
This kind of institutional racism is certainly not confined to Greenburgh. In Pelham Manor, for example, there are streets that get chained at midnight so that no one traveling from the town of Mount Vernon can enter certain Pelham Manor neighborhoods. What people do you think they may be trying to keep out?
They are trying to keep you out.
and for good reason.
Mount Vernon is not Greenburgh, Mt. Vernon is a total mess.
Which, with the current political hands on the steering wheel, is likely to result in a similar state soon.
At this stage of the game the town needs incoming revenue .Our taxes cannot go up drasticly.
What we need is meters in the parking lot for the library.
This means everyone.The people voted for this drastic renovation,so I cannot see any reason for not putting this in motion.
Post a Comment