With the State Budget being held hostage by the dysfunctional State legislature, Governor Paterson’s draconian recommendations have kicked in and, once again, New York families and communities are the loser.

But the Republicans might have an idea, it seems. On the eve of the park closings, in a mailing from State Senator Thomas Morahan, there is a push poll asking constituents if we should privatize our parks. Read on, I’m not making this up.

The mailer contains the “2010 Legislative Questionnaire.” This is a one-sided survey as it has very limited questions with an even more limited range of answers, that range from fiscally moderate to ultra-conservative. The possible range of responses pushes respondents to right-of-center conclusions. There’s no room for a progressive answer anywhere in the questionnaire.

More to the point, question #4 asks:

Which of the following aspects of government should be privatized? (check all that apply)

Highway and roadway maintenance
Corrections
Parks and Recreation
Health care
Transportation
Education

But beware, this isn’t a legitimate survey. It’s a politician playing craps with public opinion using a pair of loaded dice. This is an attempt by New York State Republicans to push through an agenda by attempting to change public perception.

This recent push poll is not unlike others. It is a underhanded political technique where Senator Morahan is trying to sway public sentiment and opinion by bringing certain issues to the forefront. There is very little science behind this polling process. And while a large number of people are contacted, little or no effort will be made to collect or analyze their responses. I know from experience that analyzing polls is very cost prohibitive and Senator Morahan’s office does not have the time, nor the resources to analyze the data. So this survey cannot possibly provide an accurate gauge of the pulse of the 38th State Senate district. It’s no wonder that push polling has been condemned by good-government groups and even the American Association of Political Consultants. And in New Hampshire, push polling is downright illegal.

Closing our public parks is just plain wrong. The Stony Point Battlefield is critically important to the economy of the Town of Stony Point as visitors to the site often spend money at the town’s shops during their visit. The Tallman Mountain pool is the only public pool in the entire town of Orangetown. They are now gone; they may never come back.

Worse than closing the parks is entertaining the cynical idea that they should now be privatized. And trying to push public opinion to this conclusion using taxpayer money is unethical to say the least.

There’s a sad irony to all of this: Mailings from our State legislature cost taxpayers $27.3 million per year and they are nothing more than incumbency insurance, or political campaigning paid for by our tax dollars. That amount is roughly the same as the $29 million that has been cut from our State Parks, resulting in today’s closings. So shouldn’t there be a question on Senator Morahan’s survey asking if we should do away with legislative mailings?

We do have taxpayer-financed elections. They are called Senate and Assembly mailings,” said Lise Bang-Jensen, a senior policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York State Policy, which analyzes state payroll and legislative office expenses.

Recently, Greg Ball, a Republican State Assembly member from Putnam County who is running for the State Senate, sent out mailings—paid for by our tax dollars—to promote an April 15 Tax Day protest event where he and several other “Tea Party” candidates made campaign speeches bragging how they’ll fight for taxpayers. Just how ironic is that?
It gets  worse, it’s alleged that Ball’s mailings didn’t only go out to his constituents, those in the larger 40th Senate District (that don’t live in Ball’s 99th Assembly District) complain that they got the Tax Day Protest invitations, which also tout the Assembly member as a “real leader and reformer.” The legality of the mailings are currently being challenged by Ball’s opponent and other regional politicians. This isn’t the first time these mailing privileges have been misused, and it certainly won’t be the last.

I often like to refer to the legislature’s mailing as “incumbency insurance.” The practice is not only cynical, questionably ethical, and easily abused, it’s outrageously expensive, costing New York taxpayers $27.3 million per year. That princely sum is roughly equivalent to the cuts being proposed to our State Parks system, cuts that might close 55 park services, including the pool at Tallman State Park and the Stony Point Battlefield.

With more efficient, and much less expensive communications such as Web sites, e-mail, and text messaging available, it’s time that we do away with taypayer-funded mailings. Also, think of the good we’d be doing our environment by eliminating these mailings; imagine of the natural resources and fuel we’d save over time.

So, make it a point to take your State legislature members and candidates to task over this issue. Demand that they support doing away with outmoded, expensive, and environmentally insensitive practice. And demand that they use taxpayer dollars for the good of all New Yorkers, and not for the reelection campaigns of a few politicians.

Without even something as simple as a business plan or a building permit, the Town has already bulldozed a notable section of the 61 acre drainage basin on Route 45, cutting down trees and paving it over. However, neither the Board nor Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence has been able to provide any hard evidence that the wooded site is in fact blighted and worthy of being classified as an urban renewal zone. But by declaring it one, the Town can easily move ahead on development and construction without going through typical bureaucratic processes.

But has St. Lawrence and the Ramapo Board played fast and loose with the legal definition of blighted to skirt State law?

New York’s Constitution (Article XVIII, Section 3) uses the precedent established by Yonkers v. Morris to define blight as follows:

* Factors to be considered in determining if area is “blighted” and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation include such diverse matters as irregularity of the plots, inadequacy of the streets, diversity of land ownership making assemblage of property difficult, incompatibility of existing mixture of residential and industrial property, overcrowding, incidence of crime, lack of sanitation, drain areas makes on municipal services, fire hazards, traffic congestion and pollution.
* For an area to be termed “blighted” and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation, degree of deterioration or precise percentage of obsolescence or mathematical measurement of other factors do not have to be arrived at with precision, since combination and effects of such things are highly variable.

Further, the New York Development Corporation Act defines a “substandard or insanitary area” as:

[I]nterchangeable with a slum, blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating area, or an area which has a blighting influence on the surrounding area, whether residential, non-residential, commercial, industrial, vacant or land in highways, waterways, railway and subway tracks and yards, bridge and tunnel approaches and entrances, or other similar facilities, over which air rights and easements or other rights of user necessary for the use and development of such air rights, to be developed as air rights sites for the elimination of the blighting influence, or any combination thereof and may include land, buildings or improvements, or air rights and concomitant easements or other rights of user necessary for the use and development of such air rights not in themselves substandard or insanitary.

I think an interested party stands a good chance of challenging this development and stopping its progress in court. After all, wouldn’t the Town of Ramapo have to prove that the area has the potential to degrade the quality of nearby property or is itself in the process of deterioration? And what proof would they present?

Aerial photographs of the site show the property to be a healthy, attractive wooded area with a stream running through it. Only the area that was bulldozed and paved over by the Town of Ramapo seems to mar it. However, the Town claims the site is polluted and filled with trash, such as abandoned cars. But those that have visited the area, including Preserve Ramapo‘s Michael Castelluccio have found the site to be “pristine” and devoid of trash. The Town has even admitted that the levels of mercury, DDT, and arsenic on the site are not highly toxic.

By insisting this wooded area is blighted and by designating the site an urban renewal zone, the town allows the Ramapo Local Development Corporation, a quasi-governmental agency chaired by St. Lawrence, to forego numerous protocols typically used in the development and construction stages. It also assists the corporation in seeking state and federal grants, including real property tax abatements. After the stadium is built, it would be owned by St. Lawrence’s corporation, which would lease the stadium to tenants.

Even after it’s built, Ramapo residents would continue to be taxed diffusely for this new stadium, picking up the slack for the tax abatements that the Ramapo Development Corporation will enjoy. While the developers could have 10 years of real property tax abatements through New York’s Empire Zone program, Ramapo residents will be footing the bill for the additional police, public works, and sewage resources this stadium will demand. In addition, the rest of taxpayers in Rockland can expect to pay for the the Development Corporation’s share of county taxes into the next decade. In short, residents of other towns will end up paying for a project that they didn’t approve. And that’s taxation without representation.

Further, it has been pointed out by local newspapers, bloggers, and activists that the surrounding roads, especially the two-lane Route 45, will be inadequate in handling the traffic to the area, possibly causing back-ups and gridlock that would extend outside of Ramapo and into Clarkstown and beyond. The Orangetown newspaper Our Town said in a recent editorial that:

The downside of Ramapo’s headlong rush to get into the sports business is the traffic impact and the investment in road improvements necessary to support a minor league baseball team and stadium. That could be spread around a much larger number of people who have no say in the matter whatsoever. All towns that could be affected should have an opportunity to review and comment during the planning process.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m calling on the Rockland County Executive’s office to take the lead in this matter, considering that this stadium could have a potential negative impact throughout all five towns.

The Town of Ramapo is playing the entire County as suckers and taxpayers need an advocate. It is the County Executive’s duty to use the bully pulpit of his office to review land use, public works, and taxation issues that can have a dire consequences on the welfare of the County. We need Scott Vanderoef to lead the County a public forum, or if need be, a suit filed by the on behalf of Rockland’s residents to stop the Town of Ramapo from moving forward with this subterfuge.

Lewis became nationally known during his prominent role in the Selma to Montgomery marches, where he marched side-by-side with martyred Nobel Peace Prize recipient Dr. Martin Luther King. During the first march, Lewis and other peaceful protesters were beaten mercilessly by the notoriously racist Alabama police. Lewis’s skull was fractured and his wounds are still visible today.

In 1986, Lewis was elected to Congress where he serves as a lion of civil liberties. He was the first member of Congress to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush and he is a staunch opponent to the Iraq War. Lewis has been one of the strongest proponents of health-care reform in Congress.

Just yesterday, Lewis made a short, but compelling statement that Congress must act now on healthcare reform. In his speech, Lewis said:

The time is always right to do what is right. And that time is now. The spirit of history is upon us. We must pass healthcare. There are those who have told us to wait. They have told us to be patient. We cannot wait, we cannot be patient.

The American people need health care, and they need it now. Will we stand with the American people? Or will we stand with the big insurance companies? We have a moral obligation to make health care a right and not a privilege. We cannot wait a moment longer. We must pass health care and we must pass it now.

Also honored at the dinner will be several local educators, NAACP mentors and the Haverstraw Town Board. More details to come soon.

Verizon’s FIOS service has not offered MSNBC in much of the NY/NJ Metro area because of a deal it’s parent company, NBC struck with Cablevision several years ago. The contract blocked the news channel from appearing on services that compete with Cablevision’s Optimum service.

Verizon had filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission in order to get the network on FIOS. It is not clear whether intervention by the government led to this development. Nor is it clear that this is a result of an agreement betweeen Cablevision, FIOS, and NBC’s new corporate parent, Comcast, which is yet another cable television provider.

Progressive stalwarts such as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz can now be watched on channels 103 and 1545 (in high definition). The service on FIOS begins February 2.

But Democrats shouldn’t be fooled by Harold Ford. Instead, they should get to know Ford behind the slick persona that has mesmerized some of our local political leaders.

And I’m not going to even get into the fact that he’s Vice Chairman of Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, a bank that received $45 billion in TARP loans, but continues to screw this country out of a much needed recovery by tightening credit lines and choking the aspirations individuals and small businesses.

No, what I want to talk about is much worse than that: Ford has run as an anti-abortion candidate in Tennessee as recently as his Senate run in 2006. While real Democratic candidates and public servants were campaigning hard to promise they would fight to ensure women’s reproductive rights, Ford promised the opposite.

As Bush’s conservative appointees began to dominate the Federal Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, reproductive rights were at risk, but Ford did not stand up for women. Instead, as a Member of Congress, a candidate, and a political commentator Ford claimed to be “Pro Life” and even supported a ban on partial-birth abortion.

Being pro-choice means a politician fights unwaveringly for a woman’s right to her own medical decisions, even when it is not popular. Ford, however, played politics with this issue in his Tennessee Senate race and proclaimed himself pro-life and spending campaign money on ads to showcase his anti-choice record.

Now he decries the “Pro Life” label in the New York Post because it being “Pro Choice” suits his political ambitions in New York. But in Tennessee in 2006, he stated clearly that he was “pro-life” and that you “don’t run from that.”

Beyond the issue of reproductive rights, Ford has been far from progressive in other areas.

While a member of Congress, Ford supported a ban on benefits for same-sex couples. Later Ford supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriage nationwide.

Ford was a supporter of the Iraq war as a Congressman, going as far as to chide his fellow Democrats that they should be more supportive of the war.

Ford was also one of the few Democrats to support the Republican Party’s efforts to intercede in the Terri Schiavo case and offered no apologies afterward, even when her autopsy backed her husband Michael’s Schiavo’s argument that his wife was in a persistent vegetative state state from which she could not recover.

Ford currently sits as the chairman of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which has used the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to create it’s own so-called “centrist” base of power. In the long run, this strategy has lead to countless concessions by the Democrats to the Republicans, while alienating labor and progressive voters. Moreover, columnist David Sirota says that the DLC’s pro-business stances leads it to consistently sell out to corporate interests. Sirota is not far off, the DLC has basically become a right-wing implant in the Democratic party. Some of its leaders, such as Marshall Whitman, also being associated with the Christian Coalition.

Harold Ford, Jr. might be running for the Senate, but he’s also running from the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once held the seat that Ford is seeking, said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” The facts are clear: Ford is not the Democratic Senator New Yorkers are seeking.

–
The opinion expressed in this article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily the opinion of the Rockland Progressive Democratic Caucus.

All residents of the Village of South Nyack who are registered Democrats are encouraged to attend. The offices of Village Trustee (2) and Village Justice are up for election.

The term of Trustee is for two years and Village Justice is for four years. South Nyack residents interested in running for these offices on the Democratic Party line are encouraged to attend as well. Further, potential candidates should contact Cliff Weathers, the South Nyack Democratic Caucus Chair, at cliffweathers@gmail.com before the meeting.

We are especially interested in finding a candidate for Village Justice. It is a part time position (two times a month for night court, plus infrequent arraignments) that pays approximately $8,000. Practicing attorneys are preferred.

South Nyack Village Hall is located at 282 S. Broadway, just south of Mansfield Ave.

Thom Kleiner has been a very effective Town Supervisor over the years. He inherited a Town that was mired in debt and cronyism. But while in office, he was able to build a town government that has been consistently recognized for its transparency and fiscal responsibility. Currently, Orangetown has received the highest bond rating (Aa3) in its history by maintaining the lowest or next to lowest taxes in Rockland County’s towns over the past five years. He’s been a champion of open spaces and prudent development, and Orangetown remains the jewel among Rockland County’s towns.

As you likely know, Thom has chosen to run for County Executive and is in a tough battle against an ineffective 16-year incumbent, C. Scott Vanderhoef. To replace him, the Orangetown Democratic Committee wholeheartedly endorsed Suzanne Barclay, Thom’s long-time executive assistant, to replace him at our convention this summer.

Suzanne has a lead role for the Supervisor’s Office on planning initiatives including the redevelopment process for 350 acres at Rockland Psychiatric Center, the development of Orangetown’s affordable housing program, the implementation of the Route 303 Sustainable Development Study, and monitoring the planning of the Tappan Zee Bridge project. Suzanne is has a Master’s Degree in City Planing and she has a long history of working for and with non-profits and giving a helping hand to the more vulnerable members of our community. She’s an irreplaceable asset in this town.

I find Suzanne to be one of the most thoughtful and measured people I know. I know her reasons for seeking the Supervisor’s job are altruistic and sincere. She is not one who’s driven by ambition; she is driven to do the right thing for the community. I’ve spoken to Suzanne about how many of us on the river feel separated from the rest of the town. She’s assured me that she wants to do better job reaching out to the villages.

Her opponent, Paul Whalen, those he shares the Republican, Conservative, and Independence Party lines with, and their acolytes have recently make a mockery of our local political process. They tried to shut down an Organizing for America meeting in Pearl River, accusing the participants of being ACORN members and socialists. Later, they hijacked a Town Board meeting and slandered the Town Supervisor and Board. They shouted down and intimidated those that disagreed with them, forcing the police to intervene at one point. Whalen lied, even to the Journal News—which knew better and called him on it—in portraying an innocuous workforce housing measure as affordable housing and an attempt to “urbanize” Orangetown. Obviously, Mr. Whalen and his minions don’t understand that politics is not the same thing as reality television and rule by mob is not democratic at all.

I look forward to seeing Suzanne assume the duties of Town Supervisor and not only continue the success of Thom Kleiner, but to help the town grow and prosper in new ways. Please support her and the other town candidates running on Row A on November 3.

It’s understandable that partisan politics, even and especially on a local level, can be off-putting for many. Much of what passes for debate and argument in today’s politics is driven by division and personal destruction. However, perhaps the biggest reason that people are turned off by politics is because the issues and debate often seem irrelevant to them. Many people feel that political parties manipulate them because they’re often asked to make hasty choices based upon labels such as “Democrat” or “Republican.”

But the truth is, political divisions are inherent in all political discourse. In Michigan, where I was born and lived until 15 years ago, most municipalities did away with partisan elections decades ago. This, however, did not end of partisan politics in those municipalities. The void left by political parties is now filled with alliances, coalitions, and confederations that are not transparent to the typical voter. Even worse, by their very nature, voters created their own quasi-parties based on racial, ethnic, and religious lines. Without political parties, we default to creating our own political apartheid, making local politics even more off-putting, and voters become even more confused by byzantine schisms within their communities.

Needless to say, it was refreshing when I moved here and found that I could vote for individuals that I could bond with on issues that were grander than the office they sought. When I first moved here, it was good to know that then South Nyack Trustee Tish DuBow was a staunch supporter of women’s rights and that Thom Kleiner once worked advocating for consumers. It was obvious to me that these people shared my core values, and it made it easier for me to vote for them even before I got to know both of them personally.

I understand that most people don’t live their lives identifying their values as being “blue” or “red” just as most people aren’t staunchly religious or secular, pro-management or pro-union, pro-development or pro-environment; we all fall somewhere on the spectrum on many issues.

However, for the people that are politicians, I don’t believe they compromise themselves by aligning and remaining loyal to a party, whether that party be the Democratic, Republican, or Independence Party. I think they do the voters a service by defining not only how they stand on current issues, but by giving their constituents an guideline on how they will respond to matters that nobody has yet considered.

I understand, however, that many people long for a politics where we have real vigorous disagreements and debates about the issues and where party affiliation is not part of the debate. They like politicians that don’t insist on having a monopoly on what is right or wrong, and don’t demonize our political opponents and their followers.

Barack Obama has asked that politicians extend themselves beyond partisan politics by espousing a “fair minded” approach to public service. He believes in a philosophical approach to politics that understands that truth and certainty are not the same thing. It is a philosophical approach that ultimately has as its goal the pursuit of the common good. It’s politics that espouses cooperation above competition. This is how politics should work on all levels, not just the local level.

However, it is also true that President Obama has had to take up the mantle of party leadership when his “common good” politics is attacked by ideologues and hate mongers. The uncomfortable truth is that not everybody, politicians nor citizens, play by these rules and to defend the common good, a politician must often fall back on the comfortable principles and parameters of the political party.

Well I’ve got a hammer
And I’ve got a bell
And I’ve got a song to sing
All over this land
It’s the hammer of justice
It’s the bell of freedom
It’s the song about love between my brothers and my sisters
All over this land

Yesterday was a beautiful day and evening to rally for health care reform and for those who live in the Hudson Valley, there was no better place to have one than riverside in Nyack’s Memorial Park. More than 700 people attended the rally and we had many great speakers and musical acts. But when Pete Seeger showed up, it turned a great rally into a magical event.

Our rally, called “Health Care for All” was started by myself and a handful of concerned Rockland County residents who had a living-room discussion last month about having a small rally. A month later, this small rally grew into a full-fledged concert, with many great performers such as Tom Chapin, Emory Joseph, Michael Mark, and The Roues Brothers. And of course, Pete Seeger.

Yes, we expect to see the teabaggers there. Some of them had even promised to shout down “that unrepentant ’60s communist, Pete Seeger” when he arrived.

But the teabaggers were soon disarmed by the patriotism of our large audience. After a musical prelude, we began our program with a sing-a-long of “America, the Beautiful” and the singer who led us, Orangetown Councilwoman Nancy Low-Hogan, had the American flag waving next to her. Not a single “tea party” person sang with us, not a single one applauded at the end of this patriotic standard. In fact, most of them milled around and talked among themselves while the rest of us saluted our nation.

They may have been discussing among themselves what went wrong. They thought they were going to take the field, but they were quite clearly in the minority. There was about 30 of them standing in back and at the time we had well over 400 people enjoying the festivities and support universal health care. My wife and a few friends kindly engaged them. One teabagger told us he was only carrying a sign because his boss told him to and he was afraid of being fired. Some teabaggers didn’t even have a grasp of what they were protesting.

“I believe that health care has to be reformed, but I don’t want it to become the way of socialists ,” [Mary] McCabe said. “I don’t like the idea that we are going to end up with the Canadian or British system.”

McCabe said people should not confuse health insurance and health care, saying that although she didn’t have health insurance at this moment, she has health care because she could go to an emergency room if she needed medical attention.

I had the opportunity to speak on stage for five minutes as did seven other speakers, including Congressman Eliot Engel (D, NY-17). Congressman Engel and me don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye on many things (which we won’t get into now), but yesterday we were brothers in arms. I have to say that the Congressman, who preceded me on stage, gave one of the more rousing speeches I’ve heard a politician give in years. He won over many of the skeptical progressives in the audience and was rewarded to a standing ovation, which was well deserved.

I much prefer blogging to speaking, but I had the confidence to boom into the sound system:

Some one hundred years ago, a former President, a former Republican, a man with his face carved on a mountain, Teddy Roosevelt, formed the Progressive Party and ran, once again for the Presidency. High on his agenda was a “social and economic justice” plan which would have created a Social Security-like system and universal health care for Americans. Are we to believe that Roosevelt was a Marxist?

This and my other comments were directed a the teabaggers, but I’m not sure if I got across to any of them.

Pete Seeger was due to arrive at 6:50 p.m as he finished his last performance in the city at 6 pm. (Pete did a concert in the New York City in the morning, another in Beacon, NY in the early afternoon, and a set at EcoFest back in the city late in the afternoon, imagine that!) Time ticked by and there was no Pete Seeger. The teabaggers went home at 7 pm, almost in lockstep.

About 400 faithful people remained. One of the local bands took the stage again to keep the audience entertained as we waited. Some of us watched the moon rise over the Hudson River. Soon after dusk gave away to night many of us began to give up hope. Then a thin shadow appeared on the hill at the park. It was soon evident that this figure was carrying an old bango and a guitar strapped over his shoulders. A collective gasp and then applause went through the audience. Pete Seeger walked on stage.

Before he played his first note, it became dead silent, and we collectively held our breath. And then he started into a set that included “If I Had a Hammer,” “Goodnight, Irene,” and Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land.” As my colleague Alan Levin put it in a letter to Seeger that he wrote today:

[It] was a transcendent experience for us all. You are, for many of us, a hero and an inspiration. That you continue to work so hard, as you did that day, to go so many extra miles in support of the people and causes that bring positive change to this world, moves us all to do more. I feel in my heart that the hundreds who waited to see you and sing with you will be braver in their commitment to continue the struggle. Certainly, I can say this is true for myself.

Alan is right, it was nothing short of spectacular. And when Pete told us from the park’s gazebo that he believed that “something good is going to happen, I know it,” we all knew that he was right. And then he said we’ve got to do more than just vote, we’ve got to act. And we agreed with him.

After a nice long set, Pete had everyone join him onstage and he signed autographs, talked with his fans, and ate pizza. And when it was time for him to go, we serenaded him with our own rendition of “This Land is Your Land.”

The beauty of this event was that so many people in our area were intimidated to come out and rally for health care reform because we felt threatened by the mob-like tactics of the teabaggers. It took Seeger, Chapin, et. al to drag us out into the open, but now that we all know we’re not alone, we feel so much more empowered. It was a magical night and I feel the momentum of this debate changing in my town.

Photo Courtesy of Brian Jennings, brianclayjennings@gmail.com