Field/Bond Vote

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I’ve been speaking with people who live adjacent or near to Burke.

While some still have misgivings about the project as a whole, everyone I spoke with is voting for Option 2. It’s the slightly more expensive of the two field proposals, but it ends up having much smaller retaining walls and less of a disruptive impact on the neighborhood.

For me, I’m glad an alternative was found to plastic grass, and that we aren’t adding significantly more games or practices at Reynolds - where there is no parking lot.

So I think I will be voting for #2, which involves placing the fields in a more tiered fashion that goes better with the existing hills. (It also has a better relationship to the sun for playing games.)

For those who may not know how the vote works, it’s basically a yes or no vote, with the yes’s choosing between Option 1 and Option 2.

Voting happens Wednesday March 26 at the High School.



(Disclaimer: I am writing as an individual person, with an opinion. Although I started this list, my emails are not representative of any group or institution. The Reynolds Field list is simply a discussion group. All opinions are welcome here.)

[Ellen Golds]

You have to vote for option 1 to also support option 2... If you read the ballot, this is clear...

Ellen Golds
914.629.3253

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Wendy Naidich]

Thanks for your support, Doug.  I just want to make one important correction:  

If you want the tiered fields, then you have to vote YES on Prop 1  AND  YES on Prop 2.

Prop 1 authorizes the district to do the work on the buildings, renovations to Reynolds, and a basic layout at the Burke.  Prop 2 authorizes the district to upgrade the plans on Burke to the tiered fields, at a cost of about $10 per year on the average tax bill.  The other parts of the package remain the same.

More info can be found on our Facebook page:   https://www.facebook.com/hohschoolsbondreferendum

Also, to answer Ed’s inquiry, the cost of Reynolds is $2.7 million.  A list of all items included in this can be found on page 2 of the recent Hastings Happenings sent by the district.  Click on the link on the right side of the Facebook page.

Wendy

On Mar 18, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Wendy Naidich]

HOHschools.org now has a quick link to the Hastings Happenings bond information.

Thanks Ellen and Ari for clarifying the bond vote options.

If anyone has questions, please call me or anyone else on the board.

Wendy
914-262-1860

[David Skolnik]

In his post under the subject Field/Bond Vote, Doug refers to an informal survey he has conducted, among Burke neighborhood residents, and so, with all the same caveats that should apply to both his own, and those vehicles that the Board has employed (exit poll, workshop/focus groups, meeting comments, conversations), I'd be curious at the response to three questions:

1) how many of you have seen the 3-D field models, at least, prior to tonight's meeting ?   If so, where?

2) Have you  attended any previous information sessions on the current bond?

3) Do you plan to attend the session this evening (Wednesday 3/19, at the community center, not the school) at 7:00 PM?

I know, it was really 4 questions.

David S

[Rick Belsky]

1) I have not seen the model personally.  I have seen slides of what the options will look like. 

2) I attended earlier meetings where people were invited to respond table by table to a variety of proposals I have not attended a more recent meeting where this specific bond proposal is discussed.

3) I will try to attend the information session.

For what it is worth, at this point I tend to lean toward voting yes on 1 but not on 2.  I think cost is a significant issue and that it is appropriate to settle for the less than perfect in order to cut back on costs.

[Wendy Naidich]

I hope you can join us this evening or at the Burke Estate on Saturday, March 22 at 10am for a walking tour.  

Just to add a bit of information for your consideration…the cost of Proposition 2, the tiered fields at Burke, is about $10/yr on the average property tax.  

Wendy

[Douglas Rushkoff]

Yeah. I kind of hate to see #2 lose simply to make a point. Especially when those who live there want it. The former Reynolds problems landed largely in their laps. 10 bucks a year doesn't seem like a lot if it will lessen the impact on their lives. 

--

http://Rushkoff.com

Rush...@rushkoff.com

@rushkoff

[*Ari Wallach]

Ditto Rushkoff's comments.

---

Ari Wallach

www.synthesiscorp.com

@ariw

p +1.347.878.6995

[Rick Belsky]

A distressing aspect of this whole long process has been observing how the opinions of some are so readily belittled or demonized by others.

I will never forget in the build up to the first vote watching high school kids being given flyers prepared by adults to hand out at the train station brazenly accusing those in the community who opposed the bond of being liars.

In this case, a vote against #2 does not deserve being characterized as a vote to "make a point" any more than any other vote is.  A good way to avoid the awful rancor generated by the first bond vote is to not immediately dismiss the validity of opinions that you don't agree with.  I tend to think the marginal return of the money that would be directed to #2 would be better spent elsewhere - or not spent at all.  I haven't come to that view flippantly. Is it too much to ask of this village that differing stances on bond votes be treated with respect?

[Iris Hiskey Arno]

Just to clarify--it's $10/yr more taxes for the average household for Proposition #2. By the same average measure, it's $170/yr tax increase per household for Prop #1 and 2 together. 

The statement "those who live there want it" is confusing . . those who live where? by the Burke field? How do we know everyone there wants it? How many people are we talking about? How differently will the two plans impact them really? 

More to the point-- lots of people strongly wanted the first bond and all that was involved with it, but many more did not. 

Each of us has to get informed and make a decision based on our beliefs, values and personal finances

[Lisa Eggert]

Here is a picture and explanation cut and pasted from a Facebook post.  It's helpful to see the 3d diagrams.  Also, my understanding is that the tiered version makes sense so far as viewing the games (the single level field doesn't allow seating at the center court) and with  the tiered version balls will be less likely to interfere with a neighboring game.  I plan to vote yes for the bond and yes to the tiered version.   Lisa

***********

From Facebook:

Here are the models showing the school bond proposal. If you are planning to vote on March 26th, there are two parts: proposition A and B. The options are: 
Vote NO to A: no improvements to Reynolds or the Burke. 
Vote YES to A and NO to B: Reynolds is improved as shown, with a new track, and the Burke is improved with a single level triple field, separated by fences.
Vote YES to A and YES to B: Reynolds is still improved as in A but the Burke layout is changed to a tiered plan as shown. Voting yes for Proposition B upgrades the Burke to a tiered layout with three separate fields, oriented North / South which is considered better for games, placed on terraced levels, with an overall feeling of spaciousness and being closer to the natural slope of the area. This also provides separation for different activities happening on different fields.
Our green space is important!

 ·  · 

Sent from my iPad

[arn...@aol.com]

And certainly not if you are already spending an additional $170 on #1.

Sent from my iPhone

[Susan Cooper]

Westchester remains the highest taxed county in the nation. Taxes doubled in ten years. When I hear the refrain "it's a small amount of money", I think of the Benjamin Franklin quote " small leaks sink great ships". Interest  compounds on these small amounts of money and everyone wants "just a little bit more" including the school board.

Susan Cooper

Sent from my iPhone

[Ed Keller]

Thanks to those of you who have shared information about the new bond proposal.  I would like to briefly explain why I plan to VOTE NO on both propositions.

 

I strongly support the need to fund capital improvements to the buildings, and would have gladly supported a bond in the amount of $4 million to do so.  However, spending another $4.5 million on a series of investments in the athletic fields is excessive and unjustified.  In particular, the $2.7 million expenditure at Reynolds is way beyond what in my view is necessary or reasonable.  There was a very modest proposal in the first round of planning to repair the track and the grass, and that is what I believe should have been put forward.

 

Taxes in a Hastings are much too high.  We had a real opportunity for tax relief, if the School Board had only focused on what is essential.  The message that an $8+ million bond issue was too high was lost on the Board,  and that is a shame.

 

Finally, I believe it is inappropriate to use our capital reserve on planned expenditures.  That fund is for unexpected and unplanned capital improvements -- emergencies.  To subsidize this planned expenditure is a misuse of that fund.

 

Ed Keller

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Cooper <susanp...@yahoo.com>
To: arniehn <arn...@aol.com>
Cc: *Ari Wallach <ari.w...@synthesiscorp.com>; Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com>; Wendy Naidich <el...@optonline.net>; Rick Belsky <rick....@gmail.com>; David Skolnik <davids...@optonline.net>; Reynol...@googlegroups.com <reynol...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Mar 23, 2014 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: A very brief survey

Westchester remains the highest taxed county in the nation. Taxes doubled in ten years. When I hear the refrain "it's a small amount of money", I think of the Benjamin Franklin quote " small leaks sink great ships". Interest  compounds on these small amounts of money and everyone wants "just a little bit more" including the school board.

Susan Cooper

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2014, at 1:35 PM, arn...@aol.com wrote:

And certainly not if you are already spending an additional $170 on #1.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:55 PM, *Ari Wallach <ari.w...@synthesiscorp.com> wrote:

Ditto Rushkoff's comments.

---

Ari Wallach

www.synthesiscorp.com

@ariw

p +1.347.878.6995

[David Skolnik]

In initiating 'very brief survey' thread, I genuinely was curious to know, specifically, about peoples' interaction with the 3D models that were provided, albeit belatedly.  I realize (now) that the questions about attendance at previous or upcoming information meetings were tangential distractions, unintentionally so.  Doug warned me that people don't like surveys, even little ones, and he is probably correct, so, my apologies to anyone bothered by the questions, and thanks to those of you who responded.  

I'm not sure I understand the 'compound-interest' distinction, but I don't believe the debt payment (principle plus interest less State rebate(?)) is really the issue.  I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm concerned about:
a) the real on-going costs of proper (i.e.1st class?) maintenance and repair of 5 fields and a new ?-foot-long sidewalk, on Chauncy
b) costs of any program expansion, afforded by additional capacity (as hinted at by reference to our 'new relationship' with the Armory Foundation
http://www.hohschools.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=306&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=3836&PageID=1
which says:

“... With the upcoming bond vote that will hopefully set aside money to fund a new 6-lane track at Reynolds Field, and our new relationship with the Armory Track Foundation in NYC, it is clear that track in Hastings in on the rise.”  Neal Rosengren, Coach

I'm extremely curious to know more about this new relationship, as well as whether it would persist, with or without the bond's passage.

c) cost of needs that may not be included in current bond, such as addressing areas within school-owned property whose maintenance have been persistently ignored, like the areas bordering Reynolds, along the south and east, or Fazio Field, which, while apparently adequately functional for the baseball season, has not been upgraded in many years, and has a significantly greater drainage issue than most of the other fields (certainly at this time of year). 

Remember that, while the 42%  refunded by the state goes specifically towards debt payments, we are still being underfunded by thousands of dollars (almost $800,000 for 2013-14) by said state, due to the Gap Elimination Adjustment: State aid that has been withheld from all districts to cover other state budget needs.  According to the presentation by Dr. Montesano, over a 5 year period, we have been deprived of $3.3 million. 

It is true, I think, that the  debt payment comprises a relatively small percentage of our year to year budget, and can be broken down, by household, to make it seem like a minimal expense, bordering on nothing, however, as has been pointed out, all these small sums add up, and the pressures don't subside.  In an Enterprise letter with which I had numerous significant issues, Dan Lemons said

"The impact of high taxes on village residents is a serious issue that cannot be addressed via this bond proposal, but should not be ignored in the future."

In fact, it should have been, and the future is now, but, in fact, that is not why I remain opposed.  It's those 3D models, and the diagrams, and what they tell me about what Reynolds is to become, even in the absence of 'synth'.  If my vision is wrong, despite my best interpretive efforts, then perhaps a little bit more $ spent in creating accurately scaled and detailed visuals, at a time when they might have added, constructively, to the formative process, would have been a worthwhile investment.

So much has been made of the depravation our students experience in the absence of a regulation track.  Yesterday, on a beautiful, somewhat chilly Sunday, the track at Reynolds was in constant use, by kids and adults, even in its current state of disrepair.  This much chillier morning, there are one or two adults, walking.  It remains hard for me to accept that that same track, properly restored, would not provide a thoroughly adequate venue for virtually all student athletes... even those as motivated as our recent record-breakers?  What we would not be able to do is host track meets.  So we should be clear.


David Skolnik


At 06:50 PM 3/23/2014, Douglas Rushkoff wrote:

And remember, this is the compounded interest payment we are looking at.

--
http://Rushkoff.com
Rush...@rushkoff.com
@rushkoff

[zcod...@aol.com]

With respect to the Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA), mentioned in the post below, I urge you all to check out our PTSA's take-action link, where you can send an electronic letter to Governor Cuomo and our legislators asking them to restore the funding we are due.  (It's really easy and quick.)  Albany has been depriving our district and others throughout NY of promised funds for several years now, totaling in the 7 figures just for Hastings alone.  If we had this money restored, we could actually LOWER taxes.  Both houses of the legislature have shown signs of being open to restoring our funds (meaning ending the Gap Elimination Adjustment - the terminology is very confusing) but Governor Cuomo seems set against it.  

The state budget is being determined now, so the time to act is now.  Also, this is an election year for Cuomo, he would be wise to listen to his constituents.  Here's the link to the electronic letter and GEA info:  

http://www.hohschools.org/cms/lib07/NY01913703/Centricity/domain/4/advocacy/pageA_2-26.html

Lisa Litvin (Co - President, HOH PTSA)

[David Skolnik]

I agree with some of what Ed has said, but not all.  I also recognize the need to maintain and make capital improvements to building facilities, but I would not dismiss the need to address the athletic component, out of hand, which, in fact, he doesn't really do, just that he sees it as excessive, particularly the $2.7 million amount allocated for Reynolds.

My concern is that the plans, as presented, are, to quote Dr. Montesano, at the last BOE information session, 'conceptual',  and, as such, require a tremendous degree of faith, by the voters, in all parties involved in the process.  At the same time, I hold to my contention that the vagueness of the plan (not the least of which is the way we are to cast our ballots) is being over-ridden by levels of coercion coming from the State, as well as local,  beginning with being offered 42% back, over 15 years, while continuing to withhold significantly greater amounts every year. And, we are told, the State could change its  mind, at any time. At the first public session of this round, someone asked Dr. Montesano how the basic building needs that are integral to the bond would be met with, in the event that the bond did not pass.  The reply was, he didn't know.  Can that be true?  Wouldn't we expect someone to be anticipating options?  We know that we can never win if we chose to reject the annualbudget twice, or, for that matter, if we were to look to override the cap, as the Governor has proposed significant penalties or disincentives to districts that do so.  One might disagree as to where the line is between 'coercion' and, simply, unappealing truths.

If we had seen a good faith effort to come up with a way to make the current track footprint work, foregoing the acquisition of an official 'regulation track', I believe we could have come up with something effective, spectacular, and unique.  Somewhere down the road, soon, we should re-visit the athletic and community concepts that have driven the 'regulation' option as the immutable base-line.  As well, with the coming-on-line of Burke as a central focus of athletic need, we should, at some point, revisit the earlier round of debates and imagine what increased level of activity would have been imposed on Reynolds, had Burke remained untouched.

Ed's last comment regarding the use of the Capital Reserve to supplement funding for the project is vitally important. 
- What was the intended function of this fund, at its inception?
- What economic conditions (no tax cap) existed? What assumptions were made as to its sustainability?
- Is its use now consistent with the original intent?
- What balance SHOULD we look to hold there, as an emergency fund?
- What are the realities regarding its replenishment, given the restrictions under the tax cap, which were not in place at the time the fund began?

The current budget calendar, misprints aside, cites the Public Hearing on the budget on April 9, approximately 2 weeks hence.  I  expect that answers to the above questions will be provided then, if not before.  The Budget 101 presentation, helpful as it was, is still not posted to the website.

David Skolnik




At 09:23 PM 3/23/2014, Ed Keller wrote:

Thanks to those of you who have shared information about the new bond proposal.  I would like to briefly explain why I plan to VOTE NO on both propositions.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 
I strongly support the need to fund capital improvements to the buildings, and would have gladly supported a bond in the amount of $4 million to do so.  However, spending another $4.5 million on a series of investments in the athletic fields is excessive and unjustified.  In particular, the $2.7 million expenditure at Reynolds is way beyond what in my view is necessary or reasonable.  There was a very modest proposal in the first round of planning to repair the track and the grass, and that is what I believe should have been put forward.

[roger scheiber]

Ed,

 

Well said, I agree.



Roger Scheiber
104 Overlook Rd.
Hastings-On-Hudson, NY 10706
914 478-5785 H
845 735-2100 W
914 393-2466 C
rogers...@optonline.net

[David Skolnik]

By all means, we should communicate with Albany, but if you even attempt to actually read the Governor's budget, and related documents, your eyes will fall out:
http://www.nysut.org/news/2014/january/school-aid-runs-your-districts-proposed-funding-for-2014-15

As far as Cuomo listening to his constituents, apparently Charter School developers, contributors and parents are quite high up on his list. Further, even with the purported surplus, I doubt the State is in a position to return those funds.
I mentioned GEA, not because it promises any mitigation in our present debate, but at least a context that has, as you know, been rather lacking.  'Context' can be have both positive and negative outcomes.  It can inform and rationally frame our actions, or it can restrain us from taking any action.  You eliminate context when you don't have faith that the voter can intelligently process it.  Maybe that's warranted.

My concern, which has received little attention here, but quite a bit on the Facebook page 10706, is that the confusing structure of the three-option proposition  (NO, Yes to #1, Yes to #1 and #2) will yield a result that NO ONe really wants, and for which everyone will be able to deny responsibility for.  Here's a redacted excerpt, from this morning:

Good morning XXXXXXXX! You and I absolutely agree on one thing....that the public has not been well informed on how this two proposal vote will work....So I hope that when each person arrives to vote they will be thoroughly informed before stepping in to cast their vote or votes as the case may be.

Yeah, that's a good time to figure it out.
And this is what our future rests upon.

David Skolnik

At 08:35 AM 3/24/2014, zcod...@aol.com wrote:

With respect to the Gap Elimination Adjustment (GEA), mentioned in the post below, I urge you all to check out our PTSA's take-action link, where you can send an electronic letter to Governor Cuomo and our legislators asking them to restore the funding we are due.  (It's really easy and quick.)  Albany has been depriving our district and others throughout NY of promised funds for several years now, totaling in the 7 figures just for Hastings alone.  If we had this money restored, we could actually LOWER taxes.  Both houses of the legislature have shown signs of being open to restoring our funds (meaning ending the Gap Elimination Adjustment - the terminology is very confusing) but Governor Cuomo seems set against it.  

The state budget is being determined now, so the time to act is now.  Also, this is an election year for Cuomo, he would be wise to listen to his constituents.  Here's the link to the electronic letter and GEA info: 

http://www.hohschools.org/cms/lib07/NY01913703/Centricity/domain/4/advocacy/pageA_2-26.html

Lisa Litvin (Co - President, HOH PTSA)

-----Original Message-----
From: David Skolnik <davids...@optonline.net>
To: Reynol...@googlegroups.com <reynol...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 8:12 am
Subject: Compound interest and other costs

In initiating 'very brief survey' thread, I genuinely was curious to know, specifically, about peoples' interaction with the 3D models that were provided, albeit belatedly.  I realize (now) that the questions about attendance at previous or upcoming information meetings were tangential distractions, unintentionally so.  Doug warned me that people don't like surveys, even little ones, and he is probably correct, so, my apologies to anyone bothered by the questions, and thanks to those of you who responded.  

I'm not sure I understand the 'compound-interest' distinction, but I don't believe the debt payment (principle plus interest less State rebate(?)) is really the issue.  I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm concerned about:
a) the real on-going costs of proper (i.e.1st class?) maintenance and repair of 5 fields and a new ?-foot-long sidewalk, on Chauncy
b) costs of any program expansion, afforded by additional capacity (as hinted at by reference to our 'new relationship' with the Armory Foundation
http://www.hohschools.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=306&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=3836&PageID=1
which says:

“... With the upcoming bond vote that will hopefully set aside money to fund a new 6-lane track at Reynolds Field, and our new relationship with the Armory Track Foundation in NYC, it is clear that track in Hastings in on the rise.†  Neal Rosengren, Coach

I'm extremely curious to know more about this new relationship, as well as whether it would persist, with or without the bond's passage.

c) cost of needs that may not be included in current bond, such as addressing areas within school-owned property whose maintenance have been persistently ignored, like the areas bordering Reynolds, along the south and east, or Fazio Field, which, while apparently adequately functional for the baseball season, has not been upgraded in many years, and has a significantly greater drainage issue than most of the other fields (certainly at this time of year). 

Remember that, while the 42%  refunded by the state goes specifically towards debt payments, we are still being underfunded by thousands of dollars (almost $800,000 for 2013-14) by said state, due to the Gap Elimination Adjustment: State aid that has been withheld from all districts to cover other state budget needs.  According to the presentation by Dr. Montesano, over a 5 year period, we have been deprived of $3.3 million. 

It is true, I think, that the  debt payment comprises a relatively small percentage of our year to year budget, and can be broken down, by household, to make it seem like a minimal expense, bordering on nothing, however, as has been pointed out, all these small sums add up, and the pressures don't subside.  In an Enterprise letter with which I had numerous significant issues, Dan Lemons said

"The impact of high taxes on village residents is a serious issue that cannot be addressed via this bond proposal, but should not be ignored in the future."

In fact, it should have been, and the future is now, but, in fact, that is not why I remain opposed.  It's those 3D models, and the diagrams, and what they tell me about what Reynolds is to become, even in the absence of 'synth'.  If my vision is wrong, despite my best interpretive efforts, then perhaps a little bit more $ spent in creating accurately scaled and detailed visuals, at a time when they might have added, constructively, to the formative process, would have been a worthwhile investment.

So much has been made of the depravation our students experience in the absence of a regulation track.  Yesterday, on a beautiful, somewhat chilly Sunday, the track at Reynolds was in constant use, by kids and adults, even in its current state of disrepair.  This much chillier morning, there are one or two adults, walking.  It remains hard for me to accept that that same track, properly restored, would not provide a thoroughly adequate venue for virtually all student athletes... even those as motivated as our recent record-breakers?  What we would not be able to do is host track meets.  So we should be clear.


David Skolnik


At 06:50 PM 3/23/2014, Douglas Rushkoff wrote:

And remember, this is the compounded interest payment we are looking at.

--
http://Rushkoff.com
Rush...@rushkoff.com
@rushkoff

On Mar 23, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Susan Cooper <susanp...@yahoo.com > wrote:

Westchester remains the highest taxed county in the nation. Taxes doubled in ten years. When I hear the refrain "it's a small amount of money", I think of the Benjamin Franklin quote " small leaks sink great ships". Interest  compounds on these small amounts of money and everyone wants "just a little bit more" including the school board.

Susan Cooper

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4354 / Virus Database: 3722/7240 - Release Date: 03/24/14

[David Skolnik]

Jeanine has posted the materials from Dr. Montesano's Budget 101 presentation here:
http://www.hohschools.org/cms/lib07/NY01913703/Centricity/Domain/4/Budget%20101%20meeting.pdf

As Tim Downey said, it's too bad it wasn't video recorded for a wider viewing audience.  Agree with it or not, it was a much clearer presentation than what generally gets presented at meetings.  Perhaps he'll do an encore.
David S

[zcod...@aol.com]

I just wanted to follow up on the Gap Elimination Issue, raised in yesterday's emails.  Today's Journal News has 2 excellent pieces about the GEA, including a strong opinion piece (http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/03/24/new-york-school-districts-demand-end-gap-elimination-adjustment/6840627/ and http://www.lohud.com/story/news/education/2014/03/24/educators-end-gap-elimination-adjustment-restore-school-aid/6836029/).

An easy and fast way to have your voice heard is to call Governor Cuomo's office (518 474 8390, prompt 3) and say the following:

"I wish to express my concerns about the Gap Elimination Adjustment."  The Gov's office will ask you if you are for or against, which is a bit unclear.  You can respond "I want the Gap Elimination Adjustment ended and the monies restored promptly to our schools."  The office will ask for your zip code (not your name) and that's it.

The state budget is being set now.  If you agree with this issue (personally, I see no down side at all, just restoration of funding due to us and all NY districts), then please make the call.

Best, Lisa Litvin

[David Skolnik]

Sorry Doug, but the fact that it may be clear to you does not make it so.  Do you think the folks at 10706 were just having fun?  And these are people that have, on some level, been paying attention.  You, of all folks would want to be careful with statements like :  "I think people are smart enough to parse that much."

Regarding taxes, that's a question of blood flow... no, sorry, I meant that's a question for the future. Except the future starts the day after the bond vote.

And, finally, with regard to your willingness to defer to the Board, clearly that's a function of many factors that each of us weighs, and the unwillingness to adopt such a posture does not, in and of itself, represent a challenge to the Boards fundamental integrity, or good faith.  Rather, in my view (and I'm absolutely serious), it supports them with the invaluable perspective of invested scrutiny.  What they are charged with doing for us is huge, and, as bright and dedicated as they might be, they are volunteers, and ought to welcome the input from a truly informed community.   That, in turn, charges us with becoming truly informed.  No small task.  For some of us, the quality of that "significant community input" remains an open question, data being what it is.

David S

   

At 01:34 PM 3/24/2014, Douglas Rushkoff wrote:

I don't think the vote is all that confusing. It is, however, really easy to express the options in confusing ways. So it's a structure particularly *vulnerable* to confused retellings.

But if people read the sentences, it's pretty clear.

1. Yes or No to bond
2. Yes or No to additional expenditure on tiered fields if the bond passes. 

I think people are smart enough to parse that much.

What's more difficult, however, is for people to evaluate whether Hastings school taxes have been going up or going down over the past few years. Or whether the new bond raises or lowers our outstanding liabilities compared with the bonds being retired. Or if people understand how the State caps on school tax now work to prevent an increase, anyway.

And it's even harder to see these realities effectively when we're caught up in our personal hopes for keeping taxes low or keeping the schools top rate.

As someone who cares first and foremost about his daughter's education, I tend to vote for what the elected Board recommends - assuming that they have studied these issues better than I can. And while the original bond felt rather aggressively promoted, which rubbed me the wrong way, this one has been created in response to significant community input.

Of course, it's up to the community to decide if the Board is trying to maintain too high a standard.

--
http://rushkoff.com
Sign up for RushkoffMail to get updates and newest writing

My book Present Shock is now in paperback
Comic series Testament is now available in a single digital omnibus
PBS Frontline doc Generation Like is streaming

[Douglas Rushkoff]

I am voting in favor. Not because I believe in anything, or support every principle involved, but because I think it's the better choice. I get concerned when I hear people voting on principle because that's the same kind of talk that paralyzes government. Unlike principles, humans living in a community can bend. I do not agree with everything in the bond, but I am in the lucky position of being okay with compromise. 

Also, luckily for Hastings on Hudson, we've been able to lower our budgets over the past few years while other towns have increased them. Even passage of this bond issue results in a lower tax burden than our current bond burden, which expires next year. 

Will my daughter be using the fields for more than gym class or flying a kite? Knowing her, unlikely. But I respect that there are other families in town for whom these fields matter as much as AP English or a proper auditorium matters to me. 

I am not attempting to argue with or challenge anyone else's positions, and encourage everyone to vote.