Food For Thought

A reader wrote in with some “Food for Thought.” Since I couldn’t say things better myself, I thought I would post his comments in their entirety:

In yesterday’s Observer Dispatch article, a resident was reported to have had some real concerns regarding why there was no Mohawk Valley Water Authority customers asked to serve on the commission? ( Griffo: Area water changes needed – Officials discuss short- and long-term solutions – Nov 16, 2007 @ 10:31 PM – By BRYON ACKERMAN – Observer-Dispatch). “During the public comment period Friday, Barneveld resident Kathy Kellogg expressed concern about the make-up of the working group.” However, Herkimer County Administrator James Wallace and Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente, as well as Senator Griffo will be the ones representing their interests. Both Picente and Griffo reside in Rome. Rome is not located in the affected Nine Mile Water Shed. Why not ask someone from Botswana or New York City to sit on this commission?

Somehow, I can see the residents of Utica getting screwed . . . again. Why wouldn’t the Mayor and Mayor-elect of Utica be asked to represent the interests of the Utica residents? Some direct accountability would be nice.
_________

In another Observer Dispatch article it was reported that Congressman Arcuri was able to secure $400,000.00 in federal funds for the design, land acquisition and construction of a Centro transit garage and maintenance facility in Utica. The new Centro Bus garage facility will be built in Utica to house busses that serve the greater Utica and Rome areas. (Arcuri secures $1.45M for projects – Nov 16, 2007 @ 08:03 AM – By ROCCO LaDUCA – Observer-Dispatch)

Utica Mayor Tim Julian questioned why this facility should be built in Utica? “When this was being talked about two years ago, I said I didn’t want to give up a multi-acreage parcel of land in Utica for a bus garage, and I still stand by that today: Put it somewhere else, not in Utica,” said Julian, adding “the facility should be located between Rome and Utica.”

I feel that Utica Mayor Tim Julian has a good point. It would be logical for this facility to be located in the Town of Whitestown. Perhaps in the “shovel ready” new State Route 840/Judd Road corridor. (Whitestown Supervisor Matt Shannon’s quote “We’re prepared, and we’re shovel-ready for the growth.” Route 840 spurs growth – Nov 14, 2007 @ 12:31 AM – By STEPHANIE VEALE – Observer-Dispatch). This location would optimally serve the transit company in three ways: First, it would be centrally located conveniently between the cities of Utica and Rome. Second, this location would be convenient to where the busses are manufactured. Orion Buss Industries is located in the Whitestown Business Park at the former Oneida County Airport just off of Judd Road. And third, Busses need room in terms of their sheer size. The Whitestown location would be able to provide the additional acreage that this facility would demand.

Those dam Walesville alliens are hard at work again!

—Greens and Beans

Salivation in Whitestown . . .

Whitestown officials are virtually salivating at the prospect of “growth” a’ la New Hartford now that Rt 840 has opened. Per the O-D,

Such development will bolster the assessment roll and provide more opportunities for residents, Whitestown Town Supervisor Matthew Shannon says.

What opportunities? Another quick stop? More office space that will simply mean moving work from other parts of the region to Whitestown? We are an area of DECLINING POPULATION, remember? This is not growth — repeat, NOT GROWTH. It’s moving the deck chairs on a sinking ship. But Mr. Shannon wants Whitestown to be like New Hartford.

“That atmosphere is going to soon migrate over to the town of Whitestown,” Shannon said. “We’re prepared, and we’re shovel-ready for the growth.”

So we get another quick stop. But what do we lose? Perhaps an organic garlic farm? The region has plenty of quick stops, but not many garlic farms. In fact, anyone who can remember back 40 years when we had 85,000 more people in this County we also had a lot more active farm land.

What will happen when a plague or some other calamity hits the California vegetable bowl? Or the cost of transportation simply becomes too high? We will want farmland nearby– but by then it will be paved over. But that’s thinking long term — something that we’ve learned not to expect from our local officials.

How about short term?

Per the O-D the Roberts’ garlic farm is already threatened by runoff from the site of the proposed quick stop, caused by the apparently unregulated dumping of fill on the property. Echos of New Hartford! And, like in New Hartford, the negative impact falls hardest on particular individuals. These are the kinds of problems the residents of Towns expect their government to prevent from developing. . . not pay to fix damage caused by developers later. Town government should not worry about serving the interests of some entrepreneur in Arizona.

“Providing opportunities for residents” is a crock. Bolstering the assessment roll is the real deal here . . . providing opportunities for government officials. That’s been the story in New Hartford, and Whitestown wants to emulate it.

Enough already!

Some Good School News . . .

Per Today’s OD, Westmoreland Road School has won a national No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Blue Ribbon School Award.

The school was chosen for the federal honor because students met yearly academic improvement goals for five years, officials said. It is one of 16 schools in the state, and one of nearly 300 in the country to receive the designation . . .

NCLB is constantly maligned — but the idea of setting goals and then working to meet them seems a common sense approach to success. It’s nice to see one school making NCLB work… but even better that it is one nearby.

Rome Helping Utica . . .

The story about Rome police helping Utica police is a welcome bit of news, especially for the besieged people of Cornhill.

What isn’t quite understood is why no help from New Hartford, Whitestown, or the various Villages nearby. Those areas will have a lot to lose if Utica goes under.

Perhaps it takes a City to understand the problems of another City, and know what to do.

The Dirty Little Secret …

The dirty little secret is revealed today about who pays for the Consent Order — though it was couched in vague terms.

On July 12: “Picente said the burden will likely land on the taxpayers of the part county sewer district, which includes New Hartford, Paris and Whitestown.” …
“This is a problem everybody knew about and nobody wanted to deal with it,” Picente said. “The towns and villages knew about this — it’s a violation issue and we’re responding to that.”

On May 24: “Within the next week, Picente said he also is planning to meet with representatives from the towns and areas affected, which include areas in the villages of New York Mills, Yorkville, Whitesboro, New Hartford and Oriskany and in the towns of New Hartford and Whitestown.”

Today we discover:

“Ratepayers in the sewer district, not all county residents, will have to pick up the tab if state or federal grants can’t be found to defray the costs of what could become a $66 million project.”

No, the cost will not fall on taxpayers of New Hartford and Whitestown, who have benefited from increases in their tax base by their new development.

The cost falls on “Ratepayers in the sewer district”

And the sewer district includes Utica.

“In the end, the executive of a county where population has dropped and business has been stagnant could ill afford to appear to be indifferent to the needs of developers who plan to add jobs and bolster New Hartford’s and Whitestown’s property tax base.”

Mr. Picente does developers’ bidding. He does New Hartford’s bidding. He does Whitetown’s bidding.

But he sends the Bill to the People of Utica.

And the Utica legislators were either too stupid or too politically connected to see that their constituents were going to get screwed.

Nothing short of complete merger of all the jurisdictions of Greater Utica can make this fair.

Why is BOCES Growing?

Today’s OD presents all the positive aspects of the BOCES expansion project, but fails to ask the question that all taxpayers should be asking:

Why is our local BOCES growing when the county has lost more than a quarter of its population since the facility was built?

The answer is not that hard to figure out, but it is one you are unlikely to see in print. It is important to remember that under Education Law §1950, the members of the BOCES board are chosen by the school boards of BOCES’ component school districts, and that BOCES offers services requested by two or more component districts.

BOCES is growing because (1) it was made to be a place where the local component school districts could rid themselves of their more-difficult-to-teach students and (2) too many students feel they are learning nothing in the regular classroom.

BOCES is growing for the same reason that special education is growing . . . which is the same reason why the No Child Left Behind law was created: our regular schools have become ineffective. Expanding BOCES only enables more of the same and is unfair to both students and taxpayers alike. Instead, we must insist that our schools do what really works — what we are already paying them to do. City Journal has an interesting article about a successful NCLB funded reform that gives some insight into what is going on in our schools today.

There are still a number of other questions about the BOCES expansion to which answers are still needed. Hopefully the public gets to read some answers before Tuesday’s vote.

BOCES: The Questions We Would Have Asked

Unfortunately, the BOCES project informational meetings planned for 2/5 and 2/8 were canceled due to the inclement weather. We hoped to have some questions answered. However, maybe there is another way to accomplish the same thing. We know that people at BOCES read this blog. Perhaps our questions and concerns can be answered with a post on the OHM BOCES website capital project information page.

Here are the questions we wanted to ask. Many are with reference to the mailing most of us received a few weeks ago.

I.) Why should the disparate treatment of taxpayers among the component school districts be considered fair?

The Dollar amounts listed below are BOCES’ estimated Tax Increase on a $100,000 home due to their proposed project:

• Brookfield $1.52
• Clinton $4.29
• Holland Patent $2.87
• New Hartford $6.46
• NY Mills $6.20
• Oriskany $2.09
• Remsen $4.15
• Sauquoit $2.00
• Utica $(2.08)
• Waterville $1.40
• Westmoreland $1.36
• Whitesboro $3.82

While we understand that differences in state aid and numbers of students sent to BOCES can affect rates, that does not explain why the project will result in a negative rate (a tax reduction) for Utica, unless Utica taxpayers have been charged for something that they won’t be charged for in the future. Clearly, the taxpayers are owed a better explanation.

Additionally in this regard, while it has been suggested that New Hartford and New York Mills are paying more because they are the wealthiest districts in terms of real estate, real-estate wealth may not reflect ability of residents to pay. For example, New York Mills is not “wealthy” considering demographic information readily available on the web. Here are some stats from 2000:

- – - – - – - – - – Median Household Income
New York Mills: $30,993
New Hartford : $45,991
Oneida County : $35,909

While it may be true that NY Mills housing values are higher than the Oneida County average, from the median household income information, NY Mills residents are clearly less able to afford a tax increase than the general county population. This begs the question, why should they (with a median income about 14% below the county average) be expected to pay more than residents in all other component districts but one (the one that has a median income about 28% above the county average)?

It also is unknown what formula of the 3 available under Education Law §1950 (4)(b)(7) (i) BOCES is using to apportion the costs of its administrative and capital programs among its component districts. A component district’s share of all BOCES expenses =

• (Formula 1) The component district’s full property valuation/The total valuation of all districts.
• (Formula 2) The component district’s Average Daily Attendance/The total Average Daily Attendance of all districts.
• (Formula 3) The component district’s resident enrollment/The total resident enrollment of all districts.

Has the BOCES Board considered the various formulae in light of median income levels in the component districts, and chosen the one that produces the most equitable result in terms of ability to pay?

II.) Why is BOCES expanding programs at its main facility when the county has lost more than a quarter of its population since the current facility was built?

If BOCES is expanding while regional population is declining, then it must mean (a) that the local school districts are doing less in certain areas and those functions are being transferred to BOCES or (b) BOCES is duplicating what the local districts are doing. The career and technical education portion is something that the local districts do not do, and was one of the primary reasons for BOCES, especially for some of the smaller suburban districts. — No problem there.

In contrast, the move toward increasing the special education and alternative education presence at the BOCES facility is troubling. It appears to be one of the reasons why BOCES is building classrooms for core academics and other facilities that a ‘regular’ school would have. Why should this not be considered duplicative of what the local districts are doing? (New York State/Federal regulations for special education will not be accepted as an explanation because if the students were kept in their home districts they would already have access to these things.) These are things that the taxpayers are already paying the local districts to do and, regarding special education, are required to do.

III.) Is BOCES growing because it is providing a place for local districts to get rid of their more difficult-to-teach students? Doesn’t this encourage laziness by the local districts? Long ago special education was reserved for the truly, obviously disabled: the blind, hearing impaired, and crippled. Everyone else learned in regular classes. Now it seems “learning disabled” is the big disability. But aren’t these children part of the “bell shaped curve” that formerly were taught — and succeeded — in the regular classroom? Isn’t the boom in special education really a “cover up” for failed education policies such as whole-language reading, constructivist math, and social promotion? In other words, aren’t the schools ignoring their own failures by blaming the students, labeling them “special education” students? Why should taxpayers tolerate this? Why should we support this with more contributions?

IV.) Why would the concentration of the more difficult-to-teach students at the main facility not be demoralizing to them? Where special education students are concerned, why does this not violate the federal “education in the least restrictive environment” regulations? The whole idea behind requiring students to be taught in regular classrooms where ever possible was to prevent the “system” from using “special education” as an excuse to cast aside the more-difficult-to-teach students. But that seems to be precisely what is occurring with this project.

V.) Why should the taxpayers pay BOCES to further the education of teachers when there are already several venues in the region that serve this purpose, including Utica College and SUNY-IT? Why isn’t this duplication?

VI.) Why is the public presented with a fait accomplis? The BOCES Board is not elected, so it represents the will of bureaucrats more than the people. When deciding on expanding its services, why was the public not brought into the discussion? Why was the consent of the public to an expansion not sought? It seems that BOCES, like many programs in what has become the “black hole” of education, has created its own need to expand.

Hopefully, BOCES will respond to these questions on its website.

Cognitive Dissonance at BOCES

Everyone by now should have received the mailing from BOCES promoting their upcoming 2/13/07 $38+ million bond referendum. Pay close attention, but don’t think too much about what you read: the “cognitive dissonance” may give you a headache.

We are told in one paragraph that Alternative Education students cannot be housed in their home school districts because they “tend to pose significant emotional and behavioral challenges,” yet are told in another paragraph that they, along with special education students, will be educated “in an integrated environment with non-disabled peers,” and be in “a less isolated environment closer to opportunities … ” What???

We are told that “many BOCES-operated special education classrooms” will remain in their home school districts, but that the BOCES Special Education department “committed to keeping center-based programs for students with intense management needs,” i.e., the difficult-to-manage students will be kept at the BOCES facility. Therefore, these must be the students that BOCES plans to integrate with their “non-disabled peers” (see paragraph above) . . . Right?? (This begs the question, if the difficult-to-manage disabled students can be “integrated” with the non-disabled at BOCES, why can’t this be done in their home districts?)

We are given numbers to show that BOCES’ enrollment is increasing to justify the expansion project. The number that we are not given is a population statistic: the fact that Oneida County has lost more than one quarter of its population since 1970 (about the time the BOCES facility was built) . . . and we know that the loss of young and family-rearing-age adults has been even more precipitous.

The alleged “need” to expand BOCES after losing a quarter of our population is probably the biggest cognitive dissonance of all.

Instead of expanding BOCES, we should be asking ourselves “Why is BOCES growing?“

We will ponder that question in a later post. In the meantime, New Hartford Online is blogging about the project’s effect on tax rates and the mailing’s veiled threat, so be sure to read that post. You also might want to read this blogger’s discussion of how the project hurts students and taxpayers and a possible no-cost alternative.

More later.

A Flight of Fancy from “UCA

Appointed Oneida County Executive Picente wants to sell the Old Oneida County Airport (UCA) land to the State. People in Whitestown are not happy.

“Bill Barry, who was chairman of the reuse committee for the former airport, said he hoped to see the roughly 1,800-acre parcel used for businesses . . . “That’s the largest single-owner piece of property in the state of New York, and there’s documents around that say there are individual companies that are interested in a large piece of property in the Northeast.““

Yes, Mr. Barry, there are companies looking for those few-and-far-between large parcels — companies like AMD.

And we did not read of any substantial monetary commitment to the Homeland Security Training Center when it was announced, so where is the money to purchase the old airport going to come from? Senate discretionary money perhaps?

Is Mr. Fiorini trying to kill off Rome’s competition? Is Mr. Bruno trying to kill off Luther Forest’s competition? Is this all just a “flight of fancy” (the only kind of flight leaving UCA these days)?

Who knows? But with announcements like todays coming seemingly out of left field, and people like Mr. Fiorini who appear to speak on behalf of an entire county legislature but also cut off discussion, the public has been given a license to speculate.

BOCES: Focus on Issues and Facts — Not Personalities

A letter to the editor this week, “BOCES expansion deserves support” by Mr. Bottini, was an attention-getter with the line:

“ If the project was not justified on its own merit, and it is, the support of Mettleman, Danella and Markley warrants our vote of confidence. “

To be sure, Supt. Mettleman, Ms. Danella, Ms. Markley, and Mr. Bottini himself, are passionate, compassionate, determined and capable administrators and educators. There appears to be no reason to doubt their interest or sincerity.

However, the vote on a $39 million dollar project should never be turned into a popularity contest or a “vote of confidence.” Instead, it should be based on reason and facts.

This blog has already pointed out that institutionalization of “Alternative Education” at BOCES may harm students and taxpayers alike by allowing local school districts to escape solving a problem largely of their own creation. If the public demands that their local schools solve the problem represented by Alternative Education, the need for Alternative Education would go away. From that perspective, keeping Alternative Education in their rented facilities makes sense; — if the paint is peeling, go out and buy a bucket of it!

This blog has also already explained how the expansion plan could harm the prospects for Special Education students (and possibly even run counter to the “mainstreaming” or “education in the least restrictive environment” federal rules); further contribute to a “gulag” or “concentration camp” image of the BOCES facility; while doing nothing to alleviate existing disincentives for students to take up vocational/career education subjects.

While consolidation under one roof is believed to be more cost-effective, where are the numbers to support the conclusion? Some costs may be avoided, but others will be incurred. If classrooms are created, others may be left behind — where are they and who will pick up those costs? This blogger understands that BOCES may be currently renting space with local school districts such as Westmoreland. Consolidation may not only increase those districts’ costs, it would make services less convenient to students located therein. As Ross Perot used to say, “the devil is in the details.” The details need to be provided to the public. One detail we can be sure of: when debt-service and associated costs are added in, the taxpayers will be paying out a lot more than $39 million.

How about alternatives? The Utica City School District seems hell-bent to blow $300 million of our state tax dollars supposedly at little to no cost to local property taxpayers . . . How about doing something that many have said is needed? Why not team up with BOCES and build a vocational education facility for BOCES in Utica, integrated into Proctor? It would relieve BOCES’ space problem and its need to tax for the expansion, bring career education to where the greatest demand exists, allow for voc-ed to be integrated with academic courses (because the cross-town bus ride would be eliminated), and effectively remove the “stigma” currently associated with BOCES.

For the sake of the students and the communities who will pay the bill, these are concerns that must be addressed squarely, and not avoided by letters to the editor focusing on personalities, generalities, and appeals to emotion.