| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Vision4Hope
a moderate’s approach to Andes property
Historically, there seem to be two ways to insure the defeat of any proposed community project: our tendency to want it ALL in any project being proposed; or presenting proposals that undermines the sanctity of our economically-gated community.
Examples of the first would be the school’s original 50 million dollar bond issue defeated in 2001. Originally, the goal was to accommodate demographic increases at JJMS & JJHS. However the initial bond was defeated, because it tried to include everybody’s wish list for every school along with the kitchen sink. And let us not forget the quiet death of the Herzog Team’s proposal to build a $14 million Town Hall to solve an ADA compliance issue.
Another problem with over-scaled projects is there need for outside funding, which is then immediately exploited by the NIMBYs as an invitation to bring in the feared “others” to our economically-gated community. Examples are recent attempts to use Legacy Funds for ball fields, or the past attempt by one town administration to build an ice rink which would have been paid for, in part, by fees from outside hockey players in search of ice time.
For all the divisiveness oversize proposals cause we continue doing the same thing somehow expecting different results. So instead of trying to build one needed hardball field on the already cleared and level Andes property which could double as rectangular field in off-season, those pushing for fields want nothing less then multi-turf, lighted fields, so expensive, to be only affordable with Legacy money. No wonder any neighbor, living near such a proposed project is defensively up in arms, shouting NIMBY, whether they live near Andes or Route 22.
How about a more neighborhood friendly solution? Allow somebody like A-Home to buy the Andes property with county funds in order to build 11 senior housing units. (A-Home already owns a well maintained project in town which I would bet 99% of the residents don’t even know exists) This would reduce the town,s cost for the whole property from say $1.1 million to about $300,000 or even less.
11 units of senior housing, grouped in three cluster homes, of about 3200 sf each would only occupy about 1 acre of the 8 plus acre lot.
As for the rest of the land, the moderates in town could support some field-of-dreams group, coupled with town support and zoning controls, to build one much needed hardball field with a 30 car gravel parking lot on four or five acres. And possibly the town could develop the remaining two acres as planted buffers and possibly a small children’s playground between the two projects. No multi-turf fields! No lights!
Radical! A low key, multigenerational, multiuse project, where everybody gets a LITTLE something. We get some homes for our own seniors, normally forced out of our community by escalating costs, plus an on site senior neighborhood-watch to keep younger mischief makers at bay. We get a needed adult size hardball field.
Create an echo, give us some feed back, here at http.// talk.visions4hope.com/
Jeffrey Vreeland
South Salem, NY
2 Responses to “a moderate’s approach to Andes property”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 9, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Hi Jeff:
As discussed with you at an earlier date, I am in agreement with your innovate and creative thinking on this matter. The housing situation needs to be addressed sooner or later; I suspect at some point it must be addressed from a legal staindpoint. Your plan is a good start and fills in part two needs.
In my earlier discussions with you relative to this plan, you mentioned getting the state involved in installing turning lanes to address traffic and safety concerns. I think they will be needed and I suspect others will agree. .
As suggested earlier, a coalition needs to be formed; it needs to include citizens of all ilks, elected officials, BOE members and other interested stakeholders; as I have suggested: you are the one to chair the coalition and guide this to fruition-you have the ability to do it!
Go for it!
Bob Dixon
November 16, 2006 at 11:31 am
email fron Dan Welsh
Great piece - kudos to Jeffrey. Despite my radical inclinations, I can
relate to this moderate proposal. Even if one doesn’t agree with the
scheme (and I am thinking that I do), its at least a proposal which
talks about the community as more than a farm team for Ivy League sports.
Jeffrey does well to point out that we are not limited to the two
schemes that have been put before us.
It is only sensible to be thinking what other options are there which
might be even more beneficial to the town. For say, five million bucks,
we could do some amazing things I imagine. Put solar panels on all
school and municipal buildings, maybe geothermal heating - that would
actually have a return, and REDUCE taxes. The senior housing is a great
idea. Or maybe subsidize some green businesses that would create jobs for
people in the community. Or lets fix the traffic problem down at 121
which, as Steve Warshaw pointed out, exists with or without Andes
development. If we have blinders on only for ball fields, you likely to be
missing some good stuff.
And anyway just how big a shortage is there? If any? Has anybody ever
“run the numbers” - how many kids of sport age per playing field in the
town or some such marker and compared it to other towns? We keep saying
there is a shortage, but I have never seen any real figures to back
that up. Its all anecdotal. I do know that things have changed, and where
in the past kids did one sport per season max (and some did their sport
with friends in the back yard), now kids are often on two, or even
three teams for different sports! … Are we obliged to support this trend?