Recognizing “Mr. Summerfest”

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the Editor:
Summerfest is just around the corner. Returning after an unfortunate two-year hiatus, it has been a tradition in the village for decades. Summerfest brings many village groups and organizations together to welcome summer and to celebrate life in our little river town. But even though Summerfest has returned, something will be missing this year, and that is Dr. Greg Schmidt, known by many in the village as “Mr. Summerfest” due to his more than three decades of organizing and running the village’s annual event.

Greg fixed many an aching back and cared for the health of many residents in the village with his chiropractic practice. He raised his family here and served the village as a trustee (three terms), mayor (also three terms), and as the President of the Croton Rotary Club, an organization whose purpose is to do public service. Greg didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk in his desire to always make Croton a better community for all who live here. He nurtured and helped Summerfest to grow for over 32 years. His contributions to our village are too numerous to list here.

Yet when I approached the village board a few years ago to request that Dr. Schmidt be recognized for his years of service, the response was that the board had to reach “consensus”. The board has shuffled members in and out and some have remained the same, and we have a new village manager, but apparently the Board is still unable to reach a consensus on the question of whether it is appropriate to honor Dr. Schmidt’s contributions to the village in a public way. The board has named streets and meeting rooms in the blink of an eye, so the question is why this should take so long or be ignored.

“When I approached the village board a few years ago to request that Dr. Schmidt be recognized for his years of service, the response was that the board had to reach “consensus”. The board has shuffled members in and out and some have remained the same, and we have a new village manager, but apparently the Board is still unable to reach a consensus on the question of whether it is appropriate to honor Dr. Schmidt’s contributions to the village in a public way. The board has named streets and meeting rooms in the blink of an eye, so the question is why this should take so long or be ignored.”

Perhaps village residents should write or call their elected officials and ask why we can’t make this happen. The contributions Dr. Schmidt made are significant and easily meet the standards for recognition from the village. I personally think a plaque near or on the dummy light in the upper village would be a wonderful recognition since it is the place where “Mr. Summerfest” announced and recognized the many village groups as they paraded into the upper village to open Croton's Summerfest for 32 years.

Respectfully,
Bob Anderson

Croton’s Hall Monitor Wannabes

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
We have become accustomed to the daily excuses as to why some people are exempt from mask requirements, the winner being Los Angeles’ Mayor Garcetti saying it was ok for him to go maskless since he can hold his breath.

Criticism from the common folk is met with throwback 50s sexism from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (“Republicans are mad they can’t date me”) or that favorite go-to of charging your opponents with racism, as when Stacey Abrams’ spokeswoman fired back by claiming that a maskless Ms. Abrams was being criticized because she was at a Black History Month event.

“To those hall monitor wannabes in Croton: that behavior was scuzzy when you were in fifth grade, and it has not changed now that you got old. Stop listening in on other people’s conversations, and don’t think that you are deputized as a junior G-man (or G-woman), charged with the responsibility to patrol Croton in search of violators. If you see a mask rule violation, report it immediately to the Municipal Building staff—they know all about people refusing to wear masks.”

The power dynamic is even more clear at gatherings of the elite, such as campaign fundraisers at the Michelin-starred French Laundry ($300 per person, wine not included) or the Met Gala ($30,000 per ticket). At the French Laundry, VIPs such as the Governor of California partied maskless while the servant waiters humbly toiled in masked deference. At the Met Gala, the omnipresent Ms. Ocasio-Cortez staged a scene worthy of Marie Antoinette: an over-the-shoulder smirk at the camera, while at her feet (literally) a masked “Black woman immigrant designer” fitted AOC in a gown logoed “Tax The Rich.”

By those standards, the Croton government photo this week is tame stuff. But the point is the same.

The photo shows the staff lined up wearing red to raise awareness for heart disease in women. Save for two people, the rest are maskless. Of course, most of us would not have been aware of the fact that almost nobody wears a mask in the Municipal Building. That is because unlike the French Laundry or the Met Gala, our Croton Municipal Building is a secure fortress: much like a drawbridge over the moat of a medieval castle, a static-filled intercom system ensures that the taxpayer serfs of Croton are banned from entering the building.

Outside the sealed doors of the Municipal Building is a different story. I heard of three incidents in the last two weeks alone.

The first involved a Croton store with one patron inside. A new patron entered and rather than wait in the otherwise-empty store, decided to get into a mask argument with the first patron. The new patron retreated to a safe social distance after his target proposed applying a mask to his adversary in a manner which would have been anatomically painful if not impossible.

In the second instance, a Croton resident eating at a local diner heard a woman picking up a to-go order saying she wasn’t feeling well. The resident took this as a justification for demanding that the woman disclose her vaccination status and test results to the resident. The woman left the restaurant, followed by the resident. It was the resident (!!) who got offended and called police, claiming that the woman had coughed in his face after he pursued her into the parking lot.

The third instance was similar to the second instance in that it involved someone in a food establishment who had nothing better to do than eavesdrop on the next table. A comment about a relative being ill triggered the intervention of the eavesdropper, and inquiries about the health status of the sick relative and the covid status of the relative discussing the matter. In that instance there was no escalation, probably due to the eavesdropper being an adult and the neighboring table being teenagers.

Occupants of the Municipal Building are nice enough folks, but their restricted-access cocoon seems to have led them to do a tone-deaf social media posting. In olden times, it was common for the lord of the manor to go out among the common folk at least one day a year. Sort of like the village fair episode of Downton Abbey. I know that the Municipal Building is open to the public one day per year, but that is on Election Day so that we can go and signify our gratitude by seeking their continued wise rule over us. My thought is to open the Muni Building on at least one day per month, during which even the Muni Building folks would have to follow the same mandates (including mask mandates) as apply to the rest of us.

And to those hall monitor wannabes in Croton: that behavior was scuzzy when you were in fifth grade, and it has not changed now that you got old. Stop listening in on other people’s conversations, and don’t think that you are deputized as a junior G-man (or G-woman), charged with the responsibility to patrol Croton in search of violators. If you see a mask rule violation, report it immediately to the Municipal Building staff—they know all about people refusing to wear masks.

Paul Steinberg

Power to the Rich People!

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
Members of my family have called me lazy, but I prefer to think that my “composting in place” policy is due to my being environmentally conscious. I even thought about buying a rent-a-goat franchise (they really do exist), and I am still ruminating on that opportunity. So I have no problem with banning leaf blowers in Croton. Indeed I hope that the Board of Trustees soon passes a law prohibiting raking the leaves altogether.

But I do believe that the law should apply equally to wealthy people, and that is not a view traditionally shared by the people who run Croton.

The original draft legislation (discussed in The Gazette Jan 20/26) was quite open in giving exemptions to waterfront district property and the Hudson National Golf Course, plus RA-40 and RA-60 lots. Much like JP Morgan’s quip about yachts: if you have to ask what an RA-60 home costs, you can’t afford one.

“I hate to sound like Karl Marx, but our village code should not favor any class of resident. It is an unfortunate reality that wealth correlates with political power (Residents who oppose the golf course solar farm are seeing that now). It does not have to be enshrined in statute.”

The final leaf blower legislation applies to places like Harmon, but exempts the big bucks homes (40,000 sq ft lots) regardless of location. The village also exempted itself and the school district, so La Teja can continue to belch fumes as they blow leaves from the sidewalk on to Old Post Road next to the Municipal Building. I have never understood the point of blowing leaves from the sidewalk into the public roadway, but it is a custom ingrained in Croton Municipal Building landscaping practice.

I do think that the Board of Trustees should take the next logical step. Now that rich homeowners are exempt from the leaf blower law, why not do the same thing in other areas? Vehicles with an MSRP over $50k could get exemption from parking laws, for example. So a Toyota Corolla would get ticketed for parking more than 2 hours in the Merwin Oak lot (aka “Merwyn” Oak, a Croton debate for another day), but a Porsche Cayenne would have impunity. Mercedes S-class owners would be exempt, but C-class poseurs would face the full wrath of Parking Enforcement.

I hate to sound like Karl Marx, but our village code should not favor any class of resident. It is an unfortunate reality that wealth correlates with political power (Residents who oppose the golf course solar farm are seeing that now). It does not have to be enshrined in statute.

Paul Steinberg

Croton Deserves Responsible Solar

Croton Deserves Responsible Solar (CDRS) is a grassroots organization of village residents who are deeply concerned about the current Village Board proposal to permit Hudson National Golf Club to clear almost 600 trees in order to develop a solar field. This is an issue of vital importance to village residents and we encourage all residents to read the attached document, which is posted here with permission of CDRS.

To read the document, click here.

Catherine Borgia Is My Hero!

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
Catherine Borgia is my hero, and she should be a hero to everyone in Croton. In her civil disobedience of the village code, she leads by example.

For many months, she has had a sign in her residence window which is visible from the street. Under the US Constitution, this is not a problem. But Croton village code 230-44.P(1)(c) specifically prohibits this exercise of free speech.

She has now courageously added another lawn sign, raising the total to five. As everyone knows, Croton passed a law restricting speech to a maximum of three signs per residence [section 230-44.P(1)(f)].

Cynics might say that all of her positions are ones held by the Croton Board of Trustees, and that she sits on the Westchester County Board of Legislators. Under the circumstances, no Croton code enforcement officer who wants to keep their pension will issue a Notice of Violation against her property.

I prefer to take a less cynical view, and believe that Ms. Borgia has offered a path forward towards greater freedom in Croton. The Board of Trustees should amend village code section 230 to add: “Notwithstanding any provisions of this code to the contrary, every resident of Croton shall have the same rights to free speech as Catherine Borgia.”

“Ms. Borgia has offered a path forward towards greater freedom in Croton. The Board of Trustees should amend village code section 230 to add: “Notwithstanding any provisions of this code to the contrary, every resident of Croton shall have the same rights to free speech as Catherine Borgia.””

It is true that Ms. Borgia is supporting the positions of a particular political party, including with her most recent lawn sign addition. Not everyone in Croton may be willing to put up a “Pugh Rosales Horowitz” sign on their lawn. As a reasonable compromise, my suggestion is that when a homeowner is approached by Croton Code Enforcement, they could utter the incantation “Pugh, Rosales, Horowitz” and this would be deemed sufficient to demonstrate their fealty and hence support a finding by Code Enforcement that the particular homeowner is permitted a modicum of Constitutional rights.

Croton resident Leonard Amicola chose to exercise his Constitutional right by flying a flag supporting Donald Trump, which caused the Board of Trustees to change the village code and issue a Notice of Violation against his property in the upper village. I understand that display of a MAGA or similar flag is so egregiously contrary to the standards of Croton conformity that it calls for punishment. Even in this instance, there is room for compromise.

My suggestion is that such a homeowner be required to utter “Pugh, Rosales, Horowitz” upon demand of any municipal or Democratic Party official, in a voice loud enough to be heard clearly at a socially-distant six feet.

In addition, the Board of Trustees could set a jizya to be paid alongside the homeowner’s property and school taxes. Inclusion on the jizya rolls would be based on failure to maintain the proper party registration on the enrolled voter list. Those registered as nonaligned would pay a lower rate than those registered as Republican. Persons registered as Green or Working Families would pay a variable rate, depending on whether their party had endorsed the Democrat in the most recent gubernatorial race.

The appearance of election signs has caused some people to complain that the signs are in violation because they are up for more than 45 days. The signs are lawful, because of the exemption provided in section 230-44.K (2)(c): Temporary signs pertaining to election campaigns. Such signs shall not be subject to the forty-five-day limitation… but shall be removed within 10 days after the election day.

This provision has become relevant this week, because Donald Trump is teasing a run for 2024. Based on the plain language of the village code, Croton residents can put up a “Trump 2024” sign and leave it up. Indeed it is permissible to put up a “Trump 2044” sign and you don’t have to take it down until November 18, 2044. That is the first election in which Barron Trump will be old enough to run for President.

I don’t support Mr. Trump, nor do I support Mr. Pugh. Both of them are intolerant and too autocratic for my taste. But those who support either of them are entitled to express that support under the US Constitution, and that is why I support both Mr. Amicola and Ms. Borgia. The freedom of speech visible on Ms. Borgia’s property is protected under the Constitution. That speech should also be protected under the Croton village code, and should be protected regardless of the viewpoint being expressed.

Paul Steinberg

Handyman’s Special!

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the Editor:
A letter written by David Bluestein, Handyman which was included in the August 12-18, 2021 edition of the Gazette incorrectly stated that the Cortlandt United slate of town candidates is a “sibling” of Croton United and suggested that the two were the same organization, just re-branded currently with the “Cortlandt” name.

Mr. Bluestein is completely incorrect. The two organizations are unrelated and have never been associated. Croton United has never used any of the “same old catch phrases” that Mr. Bluestein sets forth in his letter. Croton United has never taken a position related to Holtec International or any other issue related to the decommissioning of Indian Point. None of the hysterical and hyperbolic questions that Mr. Bluestein sets forth in his letter concerning Cortlandt United’s slate of candidates has any relevance to Croton United, which is neither supporting nor endorsing any slate of candidates for any office.

Simply put, when it comes to Croton United, Mr. Bluestein does not know what he is talking about.

Roseann Schuyler

“A letter written by David Bluestein, Handyman . . . incorrectly stated that the Cortlandt United slate of town candidates is a “sibling” of Croton United and suggested that the two were the same organization, just re-branded currently with the “Cortlandt” name. . . . When it comes to Croton United, Mr. Bluestein does not know what he is talking about.”

Fun with Flags

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:

Mr. Hasko’s letter (The Gazette, week of July 22/28) is funny, but he raises some serious questions. As a proud son of the Emerald Isle, he will be happy to know that the Croton Village Code 230-4 allows him to fly the Irish flag not only on St. Patrick’s Day but every day of the year. There is a Canadian flag on Old Post North which flies year-round, and Ireland would be a welcome addition.

Croton law explicitly excludes “The flag or insignia of any government or governmental agency” from the definition of “sign” and therefore it is excluded from the requirements of the village sign law.

This suggests a possible solution for those residents who want to show support for Black Lives Matter. A BLM flag can only be flown in Croton from a “flagpole or mast” and even that limited display assumes that the village government regards BLM as an “organization.”

A lawfully permitted BLM alternative in Croton would be to fly the flag of Wakanda, which would be exempt from the village sign code.

The village code does say “any government.” Wakanda is recognized by the US Dept of Agriculture (google “Wakanda USDA”). NYC public school teachers in the Bronx have sworn fealty to Wakanda, albeit under duress (google “Wakanda Rasheda Amon”). Of course displaying the flag of Wakanda communicates a very different message than displaying a BLM flag, which raises some interesting issues which I shall get to in a moment.

“If you put up a Red Sox flag, that conveys a different message than putting up a “Yankees Suck” flag. Because our village code makes such a distinction based on the content of a communication, the Board of Trustees must show a compelling government interest as to why Croton residents are legally prohibited from saying that the Yankees suck. Recent weeks have made abundantly clear the attitude of Croton’s ruling class toward flags showing support for police and firefighters, but it is shocking that our village code preferences the flag of a terrorist group over a flag supporting our volunteer firefighters.”

Wakanda is a fictional nation. Taiwan is a real place, but if someone put up a Taiwanese flag (whether on a flagpole or otherwise) it would require the village code enforcement to wade into a diplomatic and legal minefield. So unless we want to get targeted by DF-21s, I suggest a tacit agreement for all of us to refrain from flying Taiwan’s flag.

Olympic flags have an unclear status in Croton. Although many nations regard their national Olympic committee as a government body, that is not true in the US. So you are fine using a flagpole, but whether you can lawfully hang an Olympic flag from your porch without a permit depends on a Talmudic parsing of the Croton Village Code. I tried to grapple with the Olympic flag question, but after a brief struggle I followed the example of Simone Biles and gave up.

NY Yankees flags are fine so long as you have them on flagpoles. But it is against the law in Croton to put up a “Yankees Suck” flag without a permit; the best you can do is put up a Mets or Red Sox flag.

On a serious note, this illustrates a key problem with the village code. If you put up a Red Sox flag, that conveys a different message than putting up a “Yankees Suck” flag. Because our village code makes such a distinction based on the content of a communication, the Board of Trustees must show a compelling government interest as to why Croton residents are legally prohibited from saying that the Yankees suck.

An up and comer is the Taliban flag. Since it is an “organization” you can currently fly the flag in Croton only on a flagpole or mast. Taliban forces now control about three quarters of the land area in Afghanistan and almost half the population. Given current trends, it appears likely that at some point in the coming year the Taliban flag will be removed from coverage of the Croton sign law and can be hung anywhere on your property. In the meantime, residents with Taliban flags should seek appropriate guidance from Village Manager Healy or Village Engineer O’Connor before displaying the flag from anything other than a flagpole or mast.

“Back the Blue” and “Thin Red Line” flags in support of Croton’s police and firefighters may not be lawfully displayed in Croton under any circumstances without paying a fee and having your application approved by the Village Engineer and the Planning Board, as per 230-44(C)(1) or 230-44(K)(1).

Given the hostility of Croton’s political leadership (and some school board members) toward those type of flags, permit approval by the Planning Board (all nominated by the Mayor) is not assured. You cannot lawfully display those flags on your property in Croton even if you have a flagpole, since they are not exempt under 230-4. And as we all know, showing support for first responders on a vehicle is likely to draw the ire of our Mayor and at least one influential member of the school board.

So unless you want to risk a trip to Croton’s Village Justice Court, keep your support for police and firefighters to yourself. Support for terrorists is permitted under Croton’s village code, provided you support the correct terrorist group.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is designated as a terrorist organization by the US Government. In Croton, you may display your IRGC flag wherever you wish. The IRGC is indisputably a government agency: after the US Navy surrendered to Iran off the coast of Farsi Island in 2016, one of the US vessels had the American flag taken down and it was taken into port flying the IRGC standard. IRGC flags are difficult to get and a bit expensive. Displaying that flag might get you a visit from the FBI, but Croton code enforcement will not ticket you.

Recent weeks have made abundantly clear the attitude of Croton’s ruling class toward flags showing support for police and firefighters, but it is shocking that our village code preferences the flag of a terrorist group over a flag supporting our volunteer firefighters.

Mr. Hasko notes the changing view as to what the American flag represents. He is correct, but I would add that the national standard has been a subject of steady debate since even before the Vietnam era.

A flag is an inanimate object. The power of a flag is in the communicative value, and that is very much context-dependent: an American flag draped over a coffin at Dover Air Force base represents something very different than an American flag placed on the pavement and stomped on during the 2020 Fourth of July protest outside the White House.

Properly used, a flag can convey “speech” in a way that verbal communication cannot.

A recent example of that was seen on Cleveland Drive. The resident had an American flag on a flagpole at the end of the porch deck, with the subcompact car parked below—a Norman Rockwell image. But then in the center of the image, there was a sharp accent: On the front fence of the deck perpendicular to the American flag, there was a “Black Lives Matter”.

The effect was surprisingly powerful, and attracted conversation in the village.

The power lay in the juxtaposition of two simple pieces of cloth, placed in the context of classic Americana. It was a rebuke of the racism in our nation’s past, and at the same time called upon the viewer to fulfill the promise of America. It was the best political commentary I have seen in Croton.

The display of flags on the resident’s property was illegal, but if the resident had reversed the placement of the BLM and American flags, that would have been lawful under the village code. It would also have been a very different message. If the resident had put up lawn signs instead of the porch fence flag, it would have been not only a different message but a muddled message open to different interpretations.

The resident was making a clear and unequivocal statement. Somewhere above I think that Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. were smiling in approval. You might not agree with the message, but it was squarely within the protections of the First Amendment. Beyond a simple political statement, it was artistic and thought-provoking: the very manner of display was essential to the communicative nature of the expression.

In Croton, the legality of displaying any particular flag depends on whether politicians approve of the message. Think about that for a moment, and think about what we will lose if we allow the Board of Trustees to continue suppressing free speech.

Paul Steinberg

The Party Yearns to Silence Dissent in Croton

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
“The Party” knows everything, and dissenting speech is quickly dealt with by government officials acting at the command of the leader, who presents himself as “Big Brother.”

That is the foundation of George Orwell’s classic 1984. Spend a few minutes looking at the news, and there are some disturbing parallels to our own time. But it does not have to be that way: before Croton gets to the dystopia of 1984, Croton may get rescued by “1983.”

To be precise, 42 US Code section 1983. It has become so famous that you can simply google “section 1983” and it pops right up. It is also a hot topic right now, raised in conversations about censorship in places virtual and physical: from Surgeon General Murthy to Croton’s Board of Trustees, censors of speech can be thwarted by a mighty 145-word paragraph.

The law was intended to be a bulwark against politicians depriving citizens of their rights by using laws and government enforcement agents. When first passed, it was literally a matter of life and death.

In the aftermath of the Civil War the governmental structure of the southern states was institutionalized racism. The business and political leaders became leaders of the Ku Klux Klan. They terrorized and murdered with impunity. To combat the KKK, Congress passed a law which included the earliest version of the modern section 1983.

That curb on government officials passed by Congress in 1871 lives on in today’s law, which begins with this:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law…”

Croton is part of New York State, and as such the actions of the municipal corporation are subject to section 1983. The language of the statute is simple. In the context of Croton’s code enforcement, it requires proof of only two things: (1) an action taken pursuant to Croton’s Village Code, and (2) violation of the resident’s Constitutional right.

“For decades Croton has lived under a blatantly unconstitutional (and unenforced) village sign code. The constitutionality did seem to trouble Jim Staudt, the village attorney, while the rest of us just gave a collective eye roll. In ignoring Mr. Staudt, we left the door open for the situation we are in today. Today, lifelong Croton residents cannot even wish everyone to “Bee Happy” without running afoul of the unconstitutional Croton village code. Black Lives Matter—except when Code Enforcement comes a-knockin’. None of that is going to change if Croton prevails on the prospective MAGA litigation, because the moment that Croton code enforcement returns to benign neglect it is going to lose a future case.”

I am perhaps the only person in Croton who thinks the code violations will be dismissed on Constitutional grounds by the Village Justice Court. Perhaps I am naïve in that hope, but rest assured that the federal court in White Plains has staff familiar with the First Amendment.

In 2021, the biggest impediment to protecting your right to free speech is the expense of going to court. That is where section 1983’s cousin (section 1988) comes into play.

Google “section 1988” and you will come across 1988(b) and 1988(c). Those two paragraphs mean that if you need to hire a lawyer to vindicate your rights under the First Amendment and the judge finds that Croton violated those rights, the court can require Croton to pay your attorney fees and expert fees.

As residents, we need to start to think about how to deal with the hostility of the Board of Trustees toward free speech.

This was always about more than getting a single MAGA flag down. Unlike in 1984, the power exercised to silence speech in Croton was never the power of “The Party.” Although our political leaders treat the municipal corporation of Croton as a subsidiary arm of “The Party,” the use of Code Enforcement and other sovereign powers means that this is bigger than “The Party.” It is because the black letter of village law is being enforced by municipal employees that Croton taxpayers need to be concerned.

It is unlikely that “The Party” is going to allow the presence of a MAGA flag in Croton. That leaves two possible outcomes.

The first and more likely outcome is a federal court deciding that Croton’s law is unconstitutional and that a resident has suffered damage. In that case, even if there is a nominal damage award the resident may have his attorney fees paid. Attorney fees can be large even if the damage award is small. In a 2015 Westchester County case, the damages awarded were $201 but the Village of Harrison also had to pay the resident’s attorney fees totaling $42,125 for 114 hours of work.

That was a section 1983 case decided very quickly (by a mechanism known as Summary Judgment); if the Village of Croton gets further along with their cases than the Village of Harrison did, the ultimate cost of failure can get astronomical.

And remember that Croton is likely going to be dragging a slew of us through the code enforcement process over the coming years. Let us say that five residents go all the way through federal court. That could easily be pushing a quarter of a million dollars if the residents win after a quick trip to court.

The second possible outcome is arguably worse. A lawsuit over the Croton code enforcement tickets could drag on for years: a 2007 Rockland County political sign case was decided (against the Village of Airmont) on Summary Judgment. It still took 30 months from initiation of litigation to Summary Judgment and another four months to wind up the loose ends.

While the Croton case is puttering about in federal court the Board of Trustees will have to be vigilant in making sure that there is no bias in enforcement: Croton cannot ticket MAGA flags but allow BLM flags and Pride flags. A facially neutral law can become fatally unconstitutional if enforced in a discriminatory manner.

At the end of the day, if the Village wins that is only the beginning. Suppression of speech will never stop.

There will always be another election coming down the pike. There will always be another cause about which residents feel passionate. Much as “The Party” yearns to silence dissent in Croton, our present form of government will not allow “Big Brother” or his fellow board members to do so. The Croton Village Code sign law is so permeated with unconstitutionality that this is going to repeat, albeit perhaps with a different section of the code.

At some point in the future we will be back at the starting point, gearing up for another visit to Justice Court and then onward to federal court.

I regret to bring up such a horrifying prospect to the readers of this fine publication, but—unpalatable as the thought is—it is possible that despite our best collective effort there will still be one or two Republicans living in Croton in 2024. What are we going to do if one of those knuckle-dragging Neanderthals gets it in their tiny brain that they have Constitutional rights?

What if one of them puts up—gasp—a flag?

For decades Croton has lived under a blatantly unconstitutional (and unenforced) village sign code. The constitutionality did seem to trouble Jim Staudt, the village attorney, while the rest of us just gave a collective eye roll. In ignoring Mr. Staudt, we left the door open for the situation we are in today.

Today, lifelong Croton residents cannot even wish everyone to “Bee Happy” without running afoul of the unconstitutional Croton village code. Black Lives Matter—except when Code Enforcement comes a-knockin’.

None of that is going to change if Croton prevails on the prospective MAGA litigation, because the moment that Croton code enforcement returns to benign neglect it is going to lose a future case.

Code enforcement in Croton never took place till after it was decided the MAGA flag had to come down. The then-Village Manager didn’t bother to do basic research and our Board of Trustees—often entertainingly incompetent—changed the wrong law! After some consternation, the Village found a different provision to attack the offending flag—the code is so convoluted that in Croton there is always another (unconstitutional) way to squelch speech.

Belatedly it dawned on the geniuses known as the Croton Board of Trustees that you can’t be so obvious in abusing government power, so the BLM and “Bee Happy” signs quickly came into the cross-hairs of the municipality. Expect that to continue in the years to come.

Efforts by “The Party” to crush diehard supporters of Bad Orange Man have already led other residents to consider self-censorship. Residents took to reading the village code to see if they could get ticketed for an American flag (no) or a BLM flag (maybe) or a Pride flag (yes).

The American flag is not immune from code enforcement. Whether you fly the American flag or burn it, you are engaging in First Amendment speech. For the current village code to allow an American flag but ticket a MAGA or BLM flag of equivalent size and placement is Constitutionally suspect. At minimum it means when Croton gets to federal court, cases will be evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard—get ready to pay out those 1983 damage awards.

My personal favorite was the member of the Croton tinfoil hat brigade (and I say that with love) who asserted to me that you could get ticketed for decorations in your living room. I made a dismissive reply, only to have to later apologize and concede the truth of the assertion.

The question arose because a local political leader has a BLM sign in the window of her home. It turns out that is prohibited in Croton by 230-44(P)(1)(c): “With respect to customary home occupations, no display of signage shall be visible from the street, except as set forth in Subsection P(1)(e) below.”

Next, we take that in conjunction with 230-44(O): “The combination of permanent and temporary signage applied to or placed within two feet of the interior of any given window shall be considered part of the signage in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”

Finally we read the expansive definition of “sign” in 230-4 and yes it is true: if you put your kid’s plastic model airplane (if kids still make those) within two feet of your living room window, you theoretically could be fined in Village Justice Court.

To those who say this is taking the black letter of the Croton Village Code to an absurd conclusion, I say: It is the black letter of the code, and Code Enforcement is taking a serious risk if they pick and choose what types of speech to ticket (and yes, putting your kid’s model plane in the window can be considered speech).

No law—especially one with Constitutional implications—should be so constructed as to give unfettered discretion in enforcement. Particularly in a small community like Croton with a secretive and tight-knit political leadership not concerned about electoral opposition, this is dangerous. The decision to target the MAGA flag is a prime example of the danger, and won’t be the last such decision.

This decision was not made lightly by the Croton Board of Trustees. Any municipality targeting political speech is going to have extensive discussion with their attorney prior to commencement of enforcement. Municipal leaders know that such a matter is highly likely to end up in federal court.

Section 1983 is famous enough that any ticketed resident with a competent attorney will know that if the municipality loses it can be on the hook for a large amount of legal fees. Anybody at a senior level of government is familiar with 1983; while most common complaints involve law enforcement (which have qualified immunity), code enforcement and zoning officials are also familiar with the law.

No doubt Croton’s attorney (a specialist in municipal law) told the Board of Trustees about what happened to Airmont and Harrison, since those cases were decided in the very same courthouse that will hear the Croton cases. The 2007 Airmont case has been discussed here in Croton due to the involvement of a village resident, and incoming Assistant Village Manager Morzello probably is familiar with the 2015 Harrison case.

The Croton Board of Trustees (which is led by someone who is himself an attorney) would be aware of these basic facts. And yet…. They simply don’t care. Their arrogance and conflation of “The Party” with the municipal corporation of Croton mean that they will crush political opposition, no matter the long-term damage to the speech rights of Croton residents and no matter the financial cost.

A defining and enduring feature of our Croton Board of Trustees is an obstinate unwillingness to admit making a bad choice, let alone an actual mistake. Much like the Gouveia Park money pit or the nightly CPA light show visible from the Space Station, when it comes to silencing political speech our Board of Trustees ignores sound advice and common sense.

Free speech in Croton starts with taking a stand. In the final analysis, 42 U.S. Code section 1983 and section 1988 might help to cover some of the costs of the fight, and dissuade “The Party” in Croton from becoming “The Party” in Orwell’s 1984.

Free speech is worth the fight. Our Constitution is worth the fight.

Paul Steinberg

Croton Should Support Our Seniors

The following letter was published in last week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
I am one of the hundred-plus members of the Croton Senior Citizens Club which met June 25 at Senasqua. At that time it was announced that our very capable director, Valerie Nolan, who is member of the recreation staff, was not being re-hired as our director due to budget cuts.

The job is part-time, and the salary is minimal. The job of the director includes planning trips and activities of interest for the members of the club; and also oversee those activities ensuring the well-being of participating persons. Obviously, having a person in this capacity is absolutely necessary for the successful operation of the club.

“Why can the present mayor and board of trustees spend millions of dollars for stop lights and seldom-used bicycle lanes on Croton Point Avenue, and not spend a few dollars on a director for the seniors? . . . Taking out our director would indicate an important step by the Village Board to relegating our senior citizens to second-rate status in our village.”

Our senior club is made up of residents who have given back to the community and the country in so many ways. We have people who are veterans, volunteer firefighters, former police officers, several who have volunteered time at the library, at local hospitals, served on Croton village committees and the Croton Arboretum board, as trustees on the Village board and hard-working members of the Croton Historical Society.

Why can the present mayor and board of trustees spend millions of dollars for stop lights and seldom-used bicycle lanes on Croton Point Avenue, and not spend a few dollars on a director for the seniors? As previously noted, the seniors serve as a backbone of volunteerism in our village. Taking out our director would indicate an important step by the Village Board to relegating our senior citizens to second-rate status in our village.

I strongly urge the Village Board to reconsider this action and provide us with a director of the Croton Senior Citizens Club.

Doris Daubney

The 1st Amendment Has No Home Here

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
As we celebrated Independence Day (or mourned it, depending on your politics), the debate over free speech in Croton continued. What speech is permissible in Croton? The answer is somewhat surprising.

As a threshold matter, the Constitution gives you certain rights regardless of what city or village you live in. Free speech is one of those rights. Even in Croton.

The Croton Village Code is more restrictive than the Constitution, which raises the issue of what standard the village Justice Court will apply. Back in 1803, the US Supreme Court said: “A law repugnant to our Constitution is void.” In 2021, the Croton Board of Trustees and a fair number of Croton residents would say that the Constitution is what is repugnant to the village code, as well as the values of many residents.

Let us assume that the Justice Court holds that the US Constitution is subordinate to the Croton Village Code. What free speech is granted to us in the village code by the Croton Board of Trustees?

As a resident of Croton, your rights to put up political signs are governed by the Zoning section of the code. The entire code is online, and Zoning is Chapter 230. The definitions for the laws in this section can be found at section 230-4. Laws regarding signage are at 230-44. So in order to find out what you can be issued a violation for, it is necessary to see if your expression of speech is exempt from 230-44.

The code defines “sign” as broadly as can be imagined. It covers all the flags, banners, lawn signs and more. It allows four exemptions from coverage, lettered “A” through “D.” It is the middle two “B” and “C” which are of relevance here.

“B” exempts: “The flag or insignia of any government or governmental agency.”

This answers the question about the American flag: Yes, it can be flown in Croton without getting a permit. That this is even a topic of conversation in Croton is indicative of how far we have come.

Of course as some have pointed out, the Nazi flag would be considered the flag of a government. The code does not specify that the government must be in existence, and in any event the current German government is a successor to the previous German government which did fly the Nazi flag.

The “Betsy Ross” flag dating back to 1777 (which is racist pursuant to a declaration of Mr. Kaepernick as ratified by Nike) may be lawfully flown in Croton, as well as the old Soviet hammer-and-sickle. Croton residents may even fly with pride the same flag which currently flies over the Uyghur concentration camps.

The Gadsen flag was uncontroversial for most of America’s history and actually quite popular during the Bicentennial in 1976. Now it is declared racist by many, and probably would be a target of Croton political leaders if any homeowner dared to fly it. The flag was used as the standard of the first Commander in Chief of the Navy. If you get a ticket for the Gadsen flag, the Village Justice would have to decide whether the Gadsen flag is the flag of a government agency since technically it was a personal standard of the Commodore commanding the USN flagship. Does that make it exempt under village code 230-4?

The Jolly Roger flag has been flown in Croton in the last few weeks, and it poses a similar question as the Gadsen flag. Fans of the pirate standard may take comfort in knowing that it is flown at sea today onboard the US Navy destroyer USS Kidd (DDG-100), for historical reasons dating back to the first Kidd to be commissioned in 1943. Whether this is sufficient to enable it to be lawfully flown in Croton is a matter yet to be adjudicated.

Most of the confusion revolves around what is covered under Croton village code exemption “C”.

“C” exempts: “The flag of any civic, political, charitable, religious, fraternal or similar organization, which is hung on a flagpole or mast.”

The striking thing about this is that how much free speech you have in Croton depends on whether you have a flagpole. The same piece of cloth which you can legally display on a flagpole becomes illegal if you hang it on your outside wall.

“My suggestion is that we declare Croton an anti-First Amendment Sanctuary City. This would necessitate a resolution from the Croton Board of Trustees saying that Croton will not respect the First Amendment nor will it assist in any attempt by the federal government (including federal courts) to enforce the First Amendment in Croton.”

The other key point is that you need third-party approval to express your opinion. Want to fly a “Thin Red Line” flag to honor firefighters? If you just hang it out, then you need to pay your permit fee and hope the Village Engineer and the Planning Board agree with your viewpoint. But if you find a Fire Department fraternal organization that says the flag is an “organizational” flag, then you are exempt under subsection “C”.

It will come as no surprise to know that you can hang a “Croton Dems” flag till the end of time, and never get a visit from Croton code enforcement. Although you can buy “Republican” flags online, it looks as though the Republican National Committee does not have an organizational flag. So for the time being, Dem is the only way to go. You could also hang a “Proud Boys” flag or a Stormfront flag (“White Pride World Wide”) since those are organizations.

“Pride” flags are not exempt. Contrary to what you have read on Croton social media, the Pride flag is indeed political. The very essence of that flag was intended as a political statement, and designed at the suggestion of businessman-turned-politician Harvey Milk. The ahistorical claims about the Pride flag are not simply false, they are disrespectful to the memory of those who fought for equality. That being said, Pride flags are not exempt from code enforcement in Croton because the Pride flag is not the flag of an organization. No Croton code enforcement officer is going to ticket you for a Pride flag, but they could do so.

This illustrates a key problem with attempts by the Croton Board of Trustees to target dissenters: it is very difficult to draft a law allowing for expression of “desirable” viewpoints but suppressing those viewpoints you find—um—let’s call them “deplorable” viewpoints. The Pentagon is wrestling with this issue as they want to encourage Pride and BLM flags but avoid reappearance of the Confederate flags that caused enactment of the current restrictive flag regulations on US military bases.

BLM flags are a bit of a conundrum. Of course under the US Constitution they are not a problem. And in Croton it is more likely that we will have snowfall in July than the Village Manager or Board of Trustees will sic code enforcement on BLM flag flyers. But let us take a hypothetical look at BLM flag status under Croton law.

Croton has a policy of favoring BLM, including waiving normal permit fees and insurance requirements for the BLM march. One reason given is that BLM is a “movement” and not an organization.

Well, you can see how this poses a problem under Croton village code: if BLM is not an “organization” then it does not fall under exemption “C” but if the municipality takes the position that BLM is an “organization” for purposes of “C” then that raises the issue of exemption from permit and insurance requirements applied to every other organization.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Croton will ticket a BLM sign for strategic reasons, perhaps even by pre-arrangement. If the quest to banish MAGA from our midst ends up in federal court, there are optics for the Village Board of Trustees and Village Attorney to consider—for both reasons of law and publicity. If you are Mayor Pugh or Manager Healy on the stand, it looks bad if the only one you have pursued is an elderly Vietnam War veteran who put up a political sign that the community dislikes because of the viewpoint expressed. Village courts and state courts may wink and overlook the obvious, but federal judges tend towards more reverence for the Constitution.

Leaving aside the distinction between putting a sign on a flagpole being legal versus taking that same sign and hanging it up on a wire being illegal, let us consider the infamous MAGA flag which has become an obsession at the Municipal Building.

Under the village code exemption “C” it would appear that the MAGA flag is acceptable to be flown on a flagpole since it was the flag of a political organization. You can also currently purchase Trump flags online from groups which have legal status sufficient to enable a finding in Village Justice Court that they are an emblem duly authorized by an “organization.”

There is a separate issue as to why the same item is lawful to display on a pole but not to put on your fence or attach to your house or hang from a wire. I personally am not a fan of these displays, but they are my fellow residents expressing their speech and my personal history has led me to appreciate that so-called “community values” are a dangerous basis on which to premise either code enforcement or judicial determination.

If we really do want to silence those not in conformity with the Croton majority, at least we should buttress our legal position. Losing these type of cases can cost a lot of money in damages and even result in fee-shifting onto the taxpayers, resulting in legal bills in the high five and even six figures.

My suggestion is that we declare Croton an anti-First Amendment Sanctuary City. This would necessitate a resolution from the Croton Board of Trustees saying that Croton will not respect the First Amendment nor will it assist in any attempt by the federal government (including federal courts) to enforce the First Amendment in Croton.

Croton’s Board of Trustees is notoriously opposed to speech by citizens, let alone expressions of dissent. It should be no problem to get a unanimous vote on the sanctuary resolution. The Village Prosecutor would be able to raise this in rebuttal when a defendant claims rights under the Constitution. The Village Justice could cite the sanctuary resolution in the Opinion, and when this ultimately ends up in Southern District the outside counsel for the village could proudly proclaim that in Croton, we stand united and firm in our resolve to crush dissenting viewpoints.

Paul Steinberg

What a Deal!

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the Editor,
Oh, boy!! Wowie!! Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys, drop whatever you’re doing and dash down to Croton Point Avenue (CPA) and see what our village board and 4.5 million taxpayer dollars (although it may be five, or even six, million dollars by now) have bought you.

We now have a new sidewalk on the north side of the street—that looks pretty much like the one we had before construction started. And another sidewalk on the south side that almost no one will use. But the board must feel it’s offensive to ask anyone to cross the street at the South Riverside light and use the north side sidewalk. So they put in another one. Why not? It’s not their money.

We also have two itsy-bitsy bike lanes that, again, hardly anyone will use—no one ever took a bicycle census to determine how many commuters actually used bicycles even before the pandemic struck. And those bike lanes are protected from the heavy traffic on CPA by . . . thick stripes of white paint on the pavement. That’ll really protect those cyclists. And, to fit all of that in, the width of car lanes has been reduced by nearly 10% making both drivers and cyclists less safe than they were before. So it’s probably a good thing that there won’t be many cyclists on the road.

“The crowning glory of the CPA project is the greatest concentration of traffic lights on the East Coast. There are twenty-nine—count ’em—twenty-nine lights (although I may have missed a couple) swinging in the breeze and delaying you as you pass through the area. And especially at night, we have this incredible light show as they change from red to green to amber and back to red again. All computer controlled! This may even put the Great Jack O’Lantern Blaze out of business. And it only cost us 4.5 million bucks. What a deal!!”

But the crowning glory of the CPA project is the greatest concentration of traffic lights on the East Coast. There are twenty-nine—count ’em—twenty-nine lights (although I may have missed a couple) swinging in the breeze and delaying you as you pass through the area. And especially at night, we have this incredible light show as they change from red to green to amber and back to red again. All computer controlled! This may even put the Great Jack O’Lantern Blaze out of business. And it only cost us 4.5 million bucks. What a deal!!

The financing of the project was the true demonstration of the board’s genius. Originally estimated at $1.5 million, our board was able to triple the cost even before the first shovel hit the ground. Those federal and state subsidies? Don’t forget that they’re also taxpayer money. It’s just that we were able to snooker a bunch of other taxpayers to pour funds into this turkey.

And the county “subsidy?” ’Fraid not. That was money the county gave to the village for the perpetual maintenance of CPA when Croton assumed responsibility for the road from the county. And now it’s all gone. The original concrete roadway was in pretty good shape and didn’t require much maintenance. But in a few years, the new asphalt surface will experience the same pot holes that occur in all heavily travelled streets, and their repair will come right out of the pockets of us beleaguered taxpayers. The one place we really did need an overhaul, the right hand northbound lane on South Riverside between CPA and Benedict Blvd., was deleted from the project for cost reasons and remains a real challenge to your car’s suspension. But I guess we can always borrow more money to fix that later. Why not? All us taxpayers are rollin’ in it.

The construction contract itself was another example of the board’s fiscal acumen. When the original low bid came in at $2.9 million, the board rejected it. It’s much too high, they told us. We’ll rebid in a few months and lock in a much lower cost.

And then—when the new bids came in—the low bid had ballooned to $3.8 million. Only about a million dollars more. And they fell all over themselves signing on to it. How devilishly clever they were. What a coup! Way to go guys!!

The whole purpose of the project (they told us) was to improve traffic flow into and out of the station parking lot. But now, due to the pandemic, utilization of the lot has dropped dramatically, and no one really believes that it will ever return to pre-pandemic levels. So we will be paying off the project’s millions of dollars of bonds for decades for no real benefit. Now it wouldn’t be fair to claim that the board should have anticipated the pandemic, but their blind obsession to go forward with this project, despite all of the myriad objections raised against it, has put us in this unenviable position.

Is it any wonder that there was no self-congratulatory announcement when the project was finished, much less a ribbon cutting? I guess they just hoped that no one would notice and recall its sordid history.

Is CPA the very worst decision that a Croton board has ever made? Well, it’s certainly right up there. But I think we’d have the give the ultimate prize to the board’s acceptance of the Gouveia property. You know Gouveia. The place where nobody goes, except, of course, your hard earned tax dollars which continue to pour into it without limit. And the board still doesn‘t have a clue about what to do with it.

Sincerely,
Joel E. Gingold

Do We Practice What We Preach?

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
Croton is woke. We have a village Diversity & Inclusion Committee and our school district is busy “leveraging the brilliance” of our community to ensure “anti-oppressive pedagogy.” If someone deviates from the norm in Croton, they are quickly and firmly dealt with: maybe just a private ultimatum from the Mayor to take down a flag, maybe pelted in the street with eggs and water bottles, on occasion it is even necessary to insert a bill of attainder into the Village Code to take down a flag.

However harshly Croton deals with minority viewpoints, it is all for a good cause. We are a diverse community of minorities, and committed to even greater diversity as we move forward. Well, except for one uncomfortable fact: we don’t practice what we preach (and enforce). Hate has no home here, but hypocrisy is a different story.

The top two appointed positions in Croton are Village Manager and Village Treasurer. When those positions became vacant, the Board of Trustees chose to replace the two retiring female occupants (one a woman of color) with two white male replacements.

Now I assume that Mr. Pugh and I share a vested self-interest in making sure that white guys get jobs, but unlike Mr. Pugh, I also think that it is important to have a diverse workforce—particularly when the taxpayers are footing the bill.

Croton has never been shy about paying top dollar for talent. The budgeted base salaries for FY 21-22 are Village Manager ($180,000), Village Engineer ($171,907), Police Chief ($165,000), Supt. of Public Works ($164,424) and Village Treasurer ($137,751). Add in pension and bennies, and you are talking way over a million dollars in spending.

“Croton is woke. We have a village Diversity & Inclusion Committee and our school district is busy “leveraging the brilliance” of our community to ensure “anti-oppressive pedagogy.” If someone deviates from the norm in Croton, they are quickly and firmly dealt with . . . However harshly Croton deals with minority viewpoints, it is all for a good cause. We are a diverse community of minorities, and committed to even greater diversity as we move forward. Well, except for one uncomfortable fact: we don’t practice what we preach (and enforce). Hate has no home here, but hypocrisy is a different story.”

Is it really that difficult to find a diverse workforce? Ms. King was overqualified and commensurately overpaid. Her replacement is 30 years old. Not 30 years work experience…30 birthday cakes. I am sure he is a nice guy and all, but if the job qualifications to be selected can be met at that level, there should have been no difficulty in the Board of Trustees obtaining a large and diverse applicant pool.

Benchmarking against the available pool is standard nowadays for any major Human Resources department. If the powers that be in Croton spent less time silencing political speech and devoted that time to rooting out systemic racism, benchmarking applicant pools would be a good place to start. As a municipal corporation, Croton should have a written policy that has defined criteria to maximize the diversity of the applicant pool. There should also be sufficient transparency to assure that the process is not rigged to favor a particular outcome.

In the case of the candidate pool for jobs in public administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that almost half of your national applicant universe is female. Black and Latino [sic, the feds didn’t get the “latinX” memo] employees in the public administration field are over-represented (17.5 and 13.1 percent respectively) relative to both their workforce participation rate and by occupation. That holds true with the upcoming job market entrants: a Georgetown Univ. study showed that the undergrad majors with the highest concentration of Black and Hispanic students were law and public policy.

We are in the New York metro area. It might surprise the Croton Board of Trustees to know that there are a lot of women and minorities working in government. Our all-white, all-male Croton management team is the exception in 2021.

If you want to see the effects of systemic racism, look no further than the replacement of a BIPOC woman in the position of Village Treasurer.

The accounting profession has made major efforts to deal with the lack of gender and ethnic diversity. A big part of the problem is cultural—many students going into accounting programs have older relatives who are accountants. Today women are approaching parity in the field, although still disproportionately lacking at the upper levels. The story of BIPOC accountants is a different story. Black accountants in particular have been rare to the point of virtual nonexistence, and even today are only 8.4 percent of the profession.

Invoking “systemic racism” is commonly used to shut down discussion. In the case of the hiring selection practices of the Village of Croton’s Board of Trustees, it is a fair framework for an honest analysis.

I am not saying that the Board of Trustees should hire on the basis of gender or race. I am saying that it is a statistical improbability that in the NY metro area the Board of Trustees can only find white males to fill the top slots. If we are to address systemic racism, it is not sufficient to “leverage the brilliance” of our community and spout buzzwords of wokeness.

Eradication of “systemic” racism in Croton means changing, well…. the “system” used in Croton. That starts with knowing how a qualified random applicant pool should look in terms of gender and ethnic composition. If the pool deviates significantly, then ask the question as to why.

If tradition dictates a certain system for job posting and winnowing of candidates, and the outcome of that system does not reflect the diversity of the relevant job classification, that is a classic definition of systemic racism. Re-do the search after you have fixed the bias in the posting and selection process.

In 2021, there is no excuse for Croton’s municipal workforce becoming less diverse. There is nothing wrong with joining diversity committees and putting up lawn signs to denounce systemic racism. There is something wrong when we as a village talk one thing but do the opposite.

Paul Steinberg

Does Hate Have a Home Here?

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
The trendy epithet of choice these days is “racist,” which got quite a workout online here in Croton over the last few weeks. But after last week’s issue of The Gazette hit the stands, one resident commenting on social media reached into history to call one of the letter writers a “fascist.”

Using either term to shut down an opponent (or to discuss the Croton Fire Department) is both lazy and harmful to our community’s social fabric, but at least “fascist” has a link to Croton history.

Croton has a long association with radical causes. There are only three Americans buried in the Kremlin wall, and one of them is a former Croton resident. Dozens of other artists and writers living in Croton over the years were sympathetic to the communist cause.

It was during those decades when Croton was home to numerous pro-communist activists that fascism was the primary counterweight to communism in Europe. For many of those in the thick of politics, there was a mandatory choice between the two camps. This played out in the Spanish Civil War, and then with the rise of Hitler and Mussolini.

Sign available here.

“Lack of tolerance is common throughout human history. Dividing citizens into “us or them”—whether by nationality, political affiliation, or skin color—is effective for politicians, at least in the short run. Croton has seen some disturbing developments in the last few months with regard to expression of minority viewpoints, and it looks like the people who count in Croton are determined to accelerate that process. ”

Foreshadowing today’s “fake news” the NY Times received a Pulitzer Prize in 1931 for its glowing reporting praising Josef Stalin. The Pulitzer was accepted as the dictator murdered opponents with happy abandon and committed genocide in the Ukraine. Contrasted with Hitler’s Brownshirts and Mussolini’s Blackshirts, reds in the Ukraine seemed a lesser evil. Given the unpalatable choice, many in the US decided to stay out of the fray. But for those who believed that the fascist menace outweighed the communist, the choice was clear.

That choice would come back to haunt many Americans. With Hitler and Mussolini defeated and Franco focused within his border, communist occupation of Eastern Europe and Soviet expansionism around the world was the concern of Americans. The Red Scare swept across America, destroying many reputations and careers in its wake.

America today has many people possessed of the same moral certainty and unwillingness to tolerate dissent that marked those communists and fascists of yesteryear. Those in positions of power act to squelch speech. They use the unlimited financial resources and enforcement power of the government to limit the rights of those holding a minority viewpoint.

Throwing around words like “racist” or “commie” or “fascist” is nothing new in Croton or anywhere else for that matter. It is a classic method of exploiting partisan passions.

Benito Mussolini never tired of saying “O con noi o contro di noi” (Either with us or against us). American politicians from George Bush (“Either you are with us or with the terrorists”) to Jordan Harris (D-PA) (“Racism is not a grey area for me. You are either with us or against us”) have used the same rhetoric.

Lack of tolerance is common throughout human history. Dividing citizens into “us or them”—whether by nationality, political affiliation, or skin color—is effective for politicians, at least in the short run. Croton has seen some disturbing developments in the last few months with regard to expression of minority viewpoints, and it looks like the people who count in Croton are determined to accelerate that process.

No doubt our leaders here in Croton feel the same moral certainty and belief in the justness of their cause as every other leader has felt when silencing opposition. That does not make them bad people. But in Croton of all places, they should think carefully about where this can lead.

History shows us the dangers of elected officials and their supporters casually throwing around incendiary terms online and changing laws to silence offensive speech. But I remain optimistic and have faith that the First Amendment will prevail.

Paul Steinberg

Croton Fire Department Deserves Better Treatment

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
I hereby issue The Croton Challenge: Go one full week without calling someone racist. The prize is $14,852,036.64.

During this past week, we have seen rudeness and ingratitude by some of our neighbors while our Croton Board of Trustees has been a model of silent cowardice. You can go on Facebook and debate the merits and demerits of displaying the “thin red line” or “thin blue line” flag on Croton fire apparatus, but calling people who you don’t know “racist” because they fly a red line flag is unfair, illogical, and counterproductive. Let us leave that aside for a moment and simply address the cost of continuing this course of attack.

Nobody wants to work in a hostile environment, let alone as an unpaid volunteer. And being called a racist, and having your family called racist, is about as hostile a work environment as can exist these days. The mere charge of being a racist is enough to destroy your professional life.

When we smear the volunteer members of the Croton Fire Department as racists, we create an environment in which any sane person will resign. Some people in Croton are fine with this, and point to the fact that once we get paid firefighters in Croton, the Village Manager and Board of Trustees can “control” the firefighters, including their freedom of speech.

Some years ago, then-Mayor (and Croton Rotary member) Greg Schmidt remarked on the declining rate of volunteerism in our community. His concern was the day when a lack of volunteer firefighters leads to the need for a paid force. He said that Croton property taxes would rise so high that people would not be able to afford to live here, and it turns out that he was correct.

Fire Department benchmarks are set by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). According to NFPA 1710, minimum staffing levels per company are four persons on-duty. With five companies, NFPA minimum standard would require Croton to have 20 qualified firefighters on duty at all times. There are 168 hours in a week, so if each firefighter averaged a 40 hour week, that would be 4.2 firefighters times 20 slots, for a total of 84 firefighters on the village payroll.

“Volunteer members of the Croton Fire Department have served with honor and distinction for 129 years. They have saved property, saved lives, and made this community a better and safer place to live. They deserve better than the treatment they have received this past week.”

According to the NYFD recruitment website, starting pay with zero experience is $45,196 exclusive of overtime and holiday pay, and after five years the pay is over $100,000. Westchester firefighter salaries are much higher, and in Westchester towns and villages there is often a mix of paid and volunteer firefighters which makes it difficult to extrapolate to a situation where a village has an all-paid fire department.

Among smaller Westchester municipalities, 2018 salary data shows the 34 paid members of the Hartsdale FD averaged $164,192, with Mohegan Lake’s paid firefighters at $116,373. If Croton went to an all-paid force, a better comparison would be Yonkers (average $153,067) or New Rochelle ($123,332).

For purposes of estimating cost, let us use the New Rochelle number for average base salary in an all-paid fire department.

As municipal employees, paid firefighters are covered by the state pension system (NYSLRS) and the employer contribution rate is set under the police and fire sub-plan (PFRS). For obvious reasons, funding firefighter pensions is more expensive than funding office worker pensions. The PFRS rate for FY 2021-22 is 28.3 percent.

Assuming 84 firefighters averaging $123,332 and adding in the mandatory PFRS retirement contribution, we get a base salary cost of $158,234.96 per firefighter and a total labor cost (exclusive of healthcare) of $13,291,736.64.

Volunteer firefighters have limited insurance coverage for on-duty injuries. Firefighters also have an increased risk of cancer, which is why since 2019 the law requires them to be covered by the Volunteer Firefighter Cancer Benefit Program. Firefighters who are municipal employees would also get fire coverage from their employer (in this instance, the Village of Croton-on-Hudson).

Firefighter benefits would be negotiated under a union contract. For purposes of estimating cost, let us use the plan the village gave Leo Wiegman. Even back in 2014, that cost taxpayers $22,100 (The Gazette, April 24/30, 2014). Assume that the union negotiates coverage for a single firefighter that costs $8,000 and that married firefighters get the Leo Wiegman plan at $22,100.

Statistics show that firefighters are family-oriented and so even though they skew younger, their rates of marriage are significantly higher than the general population and health care premiums would reflect that higher rate of family plan coverage. Assuming 21 single plans and 63 family plans, health coverage will cost $1,560,300 per year.

So with 84 firefighters to provide 24/7/365 coverage, Croton would pay $14,852,036.64 in salary, pension, and healthcare insurance.

Croton residents could choose a reduced level of fire protection coverage with less than 84 firefighters, since NFPA 1710 is not a legal requirement. Leaving aside the issue of safety and response time, if Croton tries to cut corners it can subject itself to legal liability. Improper staffing that causes employee injury or death can subject Croton taxpayers to liability for OSHA violations, and a property owner or fire victim would also assert failure to maintain the standard of care as set by the cognizant national association. And bear in mind that having deliberately chosen to replace a volunteer force with government employees, no jury is going to cut the municipality any slack. Almost certainly some Croton fire stations would need to be closed and this would impact response time.

The argument that Croton can rely on mutual aid to compensate for cutbacks is based on a false premise. Mutual aid is rendered in support of colleagues in a neighboring fire department. For example, Croton firefighters may respond to a location where there is a HAZMAT situation requiring specialized expertise, and so they call upon Buchanan to provide HAZMAT equipment or personnel. Or there may be a fast-spreading fire and Buchanan calls upon Croton to send reinforcements, whereupon Ossining agrees to cover Croton while the CFD engine is up in Buchanan.

Mutual aid is a reflection of the firefighter ethos. It is not a substitute for taxpayers who will not fund their own fire department. We can’t have a skeleton fire department and rely on volunteer forces from neighboring communities to fill in the gap. There is no way Croton could afford to pay professional firefighters to provide the same coverage as our volunteer firefighters provide today. The question is how much safety we are willing to sacrifice.

Tax levy money accounts for $11,729,221 of the Village of Croton’s current $19,741,790 budget. Precise computations are a bit difficult since the fire district can vary from the tax levy district, but let us assume they are substantially congruent.

The property tax levy would have to increase to $26,581,257.64 and the Village of Croton budget would rise to $34,593,826.64. That would mean a permanent 126 percent increase in the village tax levy portion of your annual property tax. Even if you are so lacking in civility and decency that you brand your volunteer firefighter neighbors as “racist” in order to win an argument, it would seem that we all have a pecuniary self-interest in maintaining the volunteer Fire Department.

To date, none of our Croton elected officials has stepped up to defend our volunteer firefighters. The only elected official to speak out is a Board of Education Trustee, and he vehemently criticized the Croton Fire Department.

The silence of our Village Manager, Mayor, and Board of Trustees speaks volumes. I have more respect for the Board of Education Trustee: he at least is honest and is perfectly fine with dealing with any fallout from disbanding the Croton Fire Department. By contrast, our Board of Trustees expect that the volunteer firefighters will suck it up and continue to show up at 2am without pay. After they put out the fire, presumably they will head back home and go on Facebook to read the latest attacks calling them racists.

The Croton Board of Trustees should either support the volunteer firefighters, or not support them. In this case, silence is not acceptable. Standing by watching while CFD firefighters are attacked by residents is cynical even by the Board’s customary standard of politics.

It is telling that the sole Democratic Party elected official to speak out is a Board of Education trustee. There was a time in the 1950s and 60s when Democratic Party activists led the fight for freedom of speech: first in the civil rights struggle and then during the Vietnam War. Progressive Democrats battled school administrators and fulfilled the promise of the Constitution in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. Now in 2021, “progressive” Democrats sit on school boards enforcing conformity and squelching free speech in their communities.

Where once upon a time, public high school students read The Crucible and learned about Joe McCarthy, today’s students learn the importance of participating in “voluntary” Parkland walkouts. Where past students admired the courage of Mary Beth Tinker, today’s students are taught to recite the “correct” viewpoint.

Make no mistake about it, the nasty vicious discourse about volunteer firefighters you have seen this past week is heading for public schools across NY State. Few people have the courage to stand up, out of fear of being tarred as racist. A few generations ago, being called a communist meant you couldn’t work in Hollywood. Today being called a racist means you may not be able to work anywhere. If you are a student thinking of serving your community in the CFD Explorer program, being called racist means you won’t get into an Ivy and probably not even your safety school.

Fear of the woke mob was a likely factor in the recent lopsided 56-7 vote on NY Senate bill 4615. One of the few Senators courageous enough to criticize the bill brought up the matter of “thin blue line”, “thin red line” and "thin green line” hats being worn by students in defiance of school district policy. The response by the bill’s sponsor was that 4615 wouldn’t apply because it is the school district which determines if the student must remove their “thin blue line” hat.

If the issue of “thin blue line” flag display comes up before the Croton UFSD Board of Education, I have a depressing premonition that the school board will not come down on the side of free speech.

Croton’s volunteer firefighters have a history going back to 1892. That is six years before the Village of Croton was incorporated. Many of the current members are second or even third generation members. No organization is perfect, and none of us is perfect—not even Democratic Party officeholders. I have been a critic of the CFD, but I am not perfect either. We need to consider that our views may differ from our neighbors but that does not mean that we have to assume our neighbors are racists.

Give credit where credit is due—when your house is on fire at 2am on a frigid January night, it is the volunteers of the Croton Fire Department—warts and all—who come to the rescue and stop your house from burning to the ground.

Volunteer members of the Croton Fire Department have served with honor and distinction for 129 years. They have saved property, saved lives, and made this community a better and safer place to live. They deserve better than the treatment they have received this past week.

Paul Steinberg

22 Traffic Lights!

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
The entrance to our Croton train station now has 22 traffic lights. That is more than the entrance to Grand Central Station, and when those 22 lights are activated it will be a spectacular show at night, drawing visitors from far and wide. Synchronized lights were one of three components of this four million dollar project. The other two were the bike lane and the sidewalk on the south side of the street.

Croton taxpayers may feel that we spent too much money on this project. I disagree, and I think we should spend a bit more.

For many decades, the sidewalk on the north side of Croton Point Avenue has accommodated the handful of commuters who walk to the train station. That sidewalk was fine for that use, since pedestrians could take a leisurely stroll up to Harmon on an empty or nearly empty sidewalk.

Lack of a sidewalk on the south side meant that tourists arriving at the train station and walking to the ShopRite would have to cross the street, walk on the north sidewalk, and then cross the street again. After a long trip up from Manhattan or the Bronx, visitors to the Croton shopping mall were deterred by having to cross the street and walk on the existing sidewalk. That problem is now solved, at no small expense to taxpayers.

“Naysayers will balk at throwing more money down this four million dollar hole. But fiscal prudence is not the Croton way. It took political vision, leadership, and lots of tax free bonds to create that four block stretch of paradise known as Croton Point Avenue. We cannot stop now. Spending millions of dollars has finally gotten us the “Croton Gateway” showplace our politicians long promised us. Beam with pride when you pay your tax bill, knowing that Croton politicians may take the credit but it is you paying off those bonds for decades to come.”

People living in Manhattan have supermarkets, of course. They also have health clubs and wine stores. But do they have them all in the same strip mall? No. And it was in part to attract those visitors that we paid four million dollars to put in a sidewalk on the south side of the street.

Unfortunately, our Croton news does not seem to have percolated down to Manhattan: I have yet to see a single person using our new south sidewalk. The solution is simple. As any Hollywood mogul can tell you, them blockbusters don’t pull traffic by themselves. You gotta do publicity.

NYC has announced that it will be spending $30 million dollars on a tourism campaign. Even our spendthrift Croton trustees won’t go for that much, but budgeting 10 percent of the CPA production cost for marketing would give us $400,000 or thereabouts to spend. NYC already has “I Love NY” so we have to come up with a different slogan to draw shoppers.

My suggestion: “Toilet paper, wine, and treadmills…. Take a MetroNorth day trip to the Croton shopping center.” The MTA already advertises day trip packages to Playland, DIA Beacon, and so forth. We could add Croton ShopRite to the brochure. That empty sidewalk will be filled with eager shoppers in no time.

The empty bike lane is a bit more difficult. People in Manhattan have Central Park and that seems popular. So we have to come up with an attraction that Central Park lacks. My suggestion is “Take MetroNorth to Croton and ride your bike to the top of a hill to see a real working gas station and podiatrist office!” Maybe Historic Hudson Valley is willing to do a combo ticket.

Naysayers will balk at throwing more money down this four million dollar hole. But fiscal prudence is not the Croton way. It took political vision, leadership, and lots of tax free bonds to create that four block stretch of paradise known as Croton Point Avenue. We cannot stop now.

Spending millions of dollars has finally gotten us the “Croton Gateway” showplace our politicians long promised us. Beam with pride when you pay your tax bill, knowing that Croton politicians may take the credit but it is you paying off those bonds for decades to come.

Now we need to show that Croton taxpayer pride to the folks in Manhattan and the west Bronx. Invite them to see our magnificent train station traffic lights and dine at our restaurants—Italian and Chinese in the same shopping center (you don’t see that in Manhattan!).

After four million dollars, a few more bucks is nothing. Besides… if we don’t spend the money on tourist marketing, our Croton Board of Trustees will just spend it on another Harmon zoning study.

Paul Steinberg

Croton’s Police Palace

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
Gee, Officer Krupke! As Croton prepares to blow through the tax cap and return to the time when the Mayor’s motto was “Bond It!” we should consider a more cost-efficient method of dealing with the wayward youth of our village.

Croton already has a per capita police expenditure far above our neighbors, as I noted previously (The Gazette, June 11/17/20). At a whopping $552 per person per year, we might even hold the record for Westchester County.

Croton’s record is likely to stand as police spending increases by millions of dollars in the coming years. Train station parking lot revenue collapsed, causing construction plans to be delayed and scaled back. But anyone familiar with the Croton way of government knows that ultimately the Police Palace is going to be finished in all its glory. In fact, spreading out the project gives time for new goodies to be thrown into the mix.

Residents who think that the pandemic-related drop in revenue will result in a permanent reduction in the scope of the project are in for disappointment.

“As Croton prepares to blow through the tax cap and return to the time when the Mayor’s motto was “Bond It!” we should consider a more cost-efficient method of dealing with the wayward youth of our village. Croton already has a per capita police expenditure far above our neighbors . . . At a whopping $552 per person per year, we might even hold the record for Westchester County.”

Piecemeal construction will take longer than planned in the pre-covid days, but Croton taxpayers know how the story ends. The new Police Palace will take up half the Municipal Building and cost $5,000,000 in principal plus $2,000,000 in interest over 20 years (Village Manager Memo dated May 29, 2020). That doesn’t even consider the upsurge in spending as that new space gets outfitted and staffed, or what happens if interest rates go above two percent.

To show you how long this discussion has been taking place, one of the early justifications was that we needed to have separate changing rooms for males and females. Yes—dreams of a grand Police Palace were first brought up back in olden times when we were unenlightened and thought there were only two genders!

There was the Thomas’ English Muffin justification: police equipment is tucked away in nooks and crannies around that massive edifice which is the Croton Municipal Building. When a “Black Swan” appears in Croton the police won’t be able get the equipment fast enough since they will have to scavenger hunt among the nooks and crannies.

The Thomas’ muffin rationale was more an argument for calling in the folks at California Closets, but the Black Swan angle raised some legitimate and serious concerns that remain unanswered to this day. The Black Swan vanished after the Board of Trustees realized that it could lead to a public conversation as to the viability of a small village police department given today’s threat environment.

Eventually we have settled on the Wayward Youth justification: the State of New York has imposed requirements for segregation of underage detainees. Unlike the gendered changing rooms, this is a state mandate with definable criteria. To that extent, it is a legitimate concern impacting the budget.

You would think that this would present an ideal opportunity to discuss that elusive concept of shared services. Much like the Black Swan or unicorns, “shared services” is reputed to exist but may be a Croton myth. Another consideration is that even when our youth are misguided, we still want them accommodated in a manner befitting guests of the Croton PD. A simple cell added in the space formerly occupied by the Village Court would not suffice without luxurious accoutrements, hence the $7,000,000 price tag.

I have thought out a win-win alternative for both taxpayers and the youth of Croton.

At $7,000,000 over 20 years, Croton taxpayers are shelling out $350,000 per year or $958.90 per day to temporarily house the underage miscreant hordes roaming our bucolic streets. The rack rate at the former Doubletree Tarrytown has been running between $100 and $150, and I am sure that the Village Manager can negotiate a government and a volume discount. As long as we can keep it under six delinquents per day, the taxpayers come out ahead.

It looks like the pandemic has hit the hotel hard, and they have lost their Hilton franchise rights. So our youth would no longer get the famous Doubletree cookie upon arrival. On the plus side, the hotel is likely to be flexible on price and it has taken on a “Sleepy Hollow” moniker which is more upscale than “Tarrytown.”

Whether awaiting arraignment by the judge or a pickup and stern lecture from Dad, the youth of Croton would be able to watch cable and swim in the pool while taxpayers would be saving money. If lack of cookies is a deal-breaker for the Board of Trustees, I am willing to try my hand at making some Toll House and I will even make a batch for the Muni Building staff (edibility not guaranteed).

To our Village Board of Trustees, spending another thousand dollars per day for the next two decades is a trifling matter. Croton taxpayers already burdened with the most expensive police in the area might feel differently.

Paul Steinberg

Signs of the Times

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
All of us should be thankful for the decision of the Croton Board of Trustees to allow limited free speech. At the April 5 meeting, the Village Manager explained that she had decided “to put many of the residents in compliance” since after going around and seeing resident signs “they’re actually illegal.”

I may be showing my age, but when I went to public school we were taught that our free speech rights were protected by the US Constitution, not by the Village Manager of Croton-on-Hudson. The Village Manager and Board of Trustees often treat Croton as their fiefdom, but even they are subject to the Constitution. It is difficult for me to grasp the view that it is up to the Village Manager to determine how residents can “communicate their opinions legally.”

Ostensibly this action is being taken to rectify “unintended consequences” of the village law regarding signs placed on the municipal right-of-way. That is absolutely false. Changing the code section regulating signs on public land or right of way has no effect on the code section regulating signs on private home lawns. A municipality has broad discretion in regulating signs placed in the right-of-way due to traffic safety considerations. Signs on public property may also be prohibited.

Contrary to what the Village Manager and Board of Trustees believe, there is a huge difference between regulating use of public property versus regulating speech on private property. To his credit Mr. Pugh attempted to point out the distinction at the April 5 session.

The existing Croton Village Code is of dubious constitutionality when it comes to free speech. It treats speech differently based on who the speaker is and what they are attempting to communicate. In itself, that would likely render any enforcement action liable to strict scrutiny in a court proceeding. Even if the code is found to be facially content-neutral, enforcement of a law restraining speech would be subject to intermediate scrutiny and that is still tough.

I am opposed on principle to restraining speech, but if the Croton Board of Trustees is determined to do so, it should establish a record demonstrating the specific criteria necessary to survive a constitutional challenge.

Signs are speech. Their sole purpose is to communicate. A law restricting signs is inherently restrictive of speech, and therefore implicates the First Amendment.

As a general rule, municipalities may restrict signage for two purposes: traffic safety and aesthetics. What municipalities may not do is favor certain speakers or certain types of speech.

Courts are particularly prickly about political speech, and the existing code section 230-44.K (2)(c) would probably not even get past the Village Court, let alone the 2d Circuit. This is not news: back in February 2017 Croton Village Attorney Staudt noted that election signs were “considered the purest form of speech” and Croton cannot force them to be taken down.

The NYS General Counsel warns municipalities that laws regulating noncommercial signs must meet three criteria: Content-neutral, narrowly-tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.

The General Counsel explicitly says not to have a law such as Croton’s 230-44.K(2)(c). The Village Board of Trustees knows this. Croton’s ruling clique does not care what the Constitution says, let alone some lawyer sitting in a government office in Albany.

Our Board of Trustees feels that laws apply to the little people. When Croton starts ticketing homeowners, we taxpayers may be in for a very expensive lesson in First Amendment jurisprudence. It is not just election signs that are subject to the unconstitutional restraints of Croton law.

Want to speak out on abortion by putting up a banner? In Croton your First Amendment rights would differ depending on whether you were Joe Homeowner or Planned Parenthood. Are you a business and want to advertise your product? If you sell widgets, you can not use removable letters on your sign. If you sell gasoline, you can use removable letters. Do you own a vacant lot? Depending on your zoning designation, in Croton you might not be able to speak at all—no signs allowed.

“The existing Croton Village Code is of dubious constitutionality when it comes to free speech. It treats speech differently based on who the speaker is and what they are attempting to communicate. . . . I am opposed on principle to restraining speech, but if the Croton Board of Trustees is determined to do so, it should establish a record demonstrating the specific criteria necessary to survive a constitutional challenge. Signs are speech. Their sole purpose is to communicate. A law restricting signs is inherently restrictive of speech, and therefore implicates the First Amendment.”

It is not easy to speak in Croton unless you want to risk a code violation and a trip to Village Court. The Board of Trustees itself admitted that as recently as April 1, most residents wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights face “the onerous process of obtaining a sign permit.” The only reason this has not been litigated is because Croton has followed a policy of benign neglect when it comes to political signs.

Now that the Board of Trustees admits that residents face an “onerous process,” can we talk about making that process less onerous? The various restrictions on speech in Croton do need to be reviewed. The Board of Trustees does need to make appropriate modifications to the code. That process needs to be done with deliberation and not in the customary slipshod manner.

A logical starting point would be to determine what governmental interest is being addressed by the legislation and then follow a similar analysis to what a court would follow when the law is challenged. But that is probably too much to ask of the Board of Trustees.

So perhaps they could start by clarifying who is covered by the amendment to 230.44.P(1). The statutory language says it applies to “lots used for residential purposes” but provides no definition of what that term means. The code speaks of “private residential purposes” in section 67 and “residential purposes” in section 66. Neither of those code sections actually give a definition, nor would they necessarily define the scope of section 230’s applicability.

The vague language of the proposed amendment to code section 230-44 is in contrast to the language of the accompanying Coastal Assessment Form specifying six specific zoning classifications where the amended law would apply. The proposed code would look to the use of the lot, the CAF says the code looks to the zoning classification of the lot. By the language of the amendment, it would appear that the Board of Trustees intends the law to apply more broadly than in the CAF, but it may simply be sloppy drafting.

Croton tradition is to have decisions made behind the scenes and then have a pro forma performance at a Board of Trustees or village committee meeting. That is distasteful but not normally an issue to anyone other than fans of good government.

When it comes to government action touching on Constitutional rights, the customary Croton secrecy is not acceptable. It may be that there is a compelling government interest in having three signs instead of two or four, but the Village Manager’s statement “I thought three was reasonable” is not a proper foundation for a deliberative process. The rationale given at the April 5 meeting was that a resident could put up one election sign, one Black Lives Matter sign, and one tag sale sign.

Aesthetic concerns are a valid governmental interest. Thirty signs on a typical Harmon lot are a proper subject of statutory curbs on speech, and a one sign limit is unconstitutional. Somewhere along that continuum we cross a line, but where? That number is not fixed in case law or the Constitution, but it is certainly not a decision to be made without establishing a record. In fact for many years one of our Croton political leaders living on a corner lot placed three signs fronting one street and three signs fronting the cross street. Nobody was bothered then, but perhaps those days have passed.

As a restraint on free speech, the proposed code amendment should be as narrowly tailored as possible. It must be facially neutral. It also should avoid having the result of favoring or disfavoring particular viewpoints.

The proposed requirement for a wire H-stake is facially neutral as to viewpoint. Most Croton residents probably had no reaction when they read that. But not all Croton residents. I missed the importance of the wire H-stake requirement, but residents supporting Trump immediately recognized that such a requirement means that they will have their signs stolen till they give up and stop expressing their speech. Many of us live in our own viewpoint bubble and it is quite probable that the Board of Trustees did not recognize (just as I did not recognize) the significance of the H-stake requirement. If Croton is truly serious about revising the law to encourage free speech, the Board of Trustees should seek input from those with minority viewpoints.

I am hardly a fan of Trump, but I am a big fan of free speech. I don’t know of any Croton resident supporting Biden or BLM who had to buy a home surveillance system as a result of them having their property stolen and vandalized in the night. I do know of two Croton homeowners who had to buy surveillance systems for protection after their overt support of Trump led to theft, vandalism, and even drive-by harassment.

Croton is lacking in diversity of viewpoint, and those having a minority political viewpoint tend to keep quiet. Many of us in Croton don’t think about that, including myself: I supported Buttigieg and Sanders, and the only time I put out a Presidential lawn sign was for Obama ’08.

In her brief discussion, Ms. King twice mentioned Black Lives Matter as an example of the free speech which was going to benefit as a result of the proposed code amendments. I am a firm supporter of the right to speak out in support of BLM. Support of BLM is hardly controversial in our area. The Village of Croton waived normal permit and insurance requirements when BLM supporters held a rally in Vassallo Park, and plenty of BLM signs are proudly displayed in our area. The Town of Greenburgh is even putting up at taxpayer expense 4 BLM signs, 5 banners, and holding an essay contest.

The test of tolerance and inclusion in Croton is not how solicitous we are of causes enjoying majority support, such as BLM. The test of our dedication to diversity of viewpoint is in how tolerant we are of minority viewpoints—even those we find repugnant. The purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure the speech rights of residents holding unpopular viewpoints.

For too long, Croton’s government has made free speech illegal. I give credit to the Village Manager for publicizing this issue and acknowledging the “onerous process” facing residents. That being said, our First Amendment rights should not depend on the grace and whim of the Village Manager and Board of Trustees. Parts of Croton’s law on signage go back to the 1960s. A lot has changed since then. It is time to do a complete overhaul of the code provisions regarding signage.

Much as I appreciate the Village Manager’s newfound appreciation of free speech, I would prefer to rely on the Constitution as the basis for protecting free speech: the laws of Croton should be revised accordingly.

Paul Steinberg

Our Board of Trustees Is Not Above the Law

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
2020 was a constant barrage of reminders that politicians believe the laws do not apply to them. Mr. Masur’s letter (The Gazette, Dec. 17/23) is a fitting coda to a cynical year.

I have long been a critic of the Croton Board of Trustees abuse of the NYS Open Meetings Law, and of their view that the public trust doctrine set forth in NYS case law is not binding on the Board of Trustees. Mr. Masur’s response is that the Croton Board of Trustees won election and are getting on “about the business of governing.”

Mr. Masur and the Croton Board of Trustees have a fundamental misunderstanding—if not outright contempt—for our system of government.

Image by Tayeb Mezahdia from Pixabay

“Mr. Masur and the Croton Board of Trustees have a fundamental misunderstanding—if not outright contempt—for our system of government. We are a nation of laws. Simply because you are an elected official does not place you above the law. Simply because you are part of a governing body (such as a Board of Trustees) does not mean that you collectively are above the law. The viewpoint of Mr. Masur is gaining widespread acceptance in our nation, but that does not make it any less repugnant and dangerous.”

We are a nation of laws. Simply because you are an elected official does not place you above the law. Simply because you are part of a governing body (such as a Board of Trustees) does not mean that you collectively are above the law. The viewpoint of Mr. Masur is gaining widespread acceptance in our nation, but that does not make it any less repugnant and dangerous.

Contrary to Mr. Masur’s mischaracterization of my position, readers of my original letter (The Gazette, Dec. 10/16) know that I support Option #2 (rent Gouveia as business office) and Option #3 (sell the house and chunk of surrounding land to private buyer). In fact, I was explicit in my support of Mr. Lippolis, saying that he “has offered the Croton Board of Trustees an exit strategy, and they would do well to consider it.”

I agree with Mr. Masur as to the end goal. Unlike Mr. Masur, I believe that even politicians need to obey the law.

It says something about our society in 2021 that this is actually a point of disagreement. Even if every single resident of Croton voted to ignore state law, it would not be proper. Even if every single resident voted to ignore decisions rendered by the courts of this state, it would not be proper.

The Open Meetings Law is a statute which sets forth the very limited number of exceptions to the presumption of transparency, including a 2-prong test for going into executive session to discuss real property matters. If Mr. Masur and the Croton Board of Trustees wish to hold meetings in secret, then they can ask the state legislature to change the law and they can have all the executive sessions that they want. The public trust doctrine is established in the case law of this state, and provides a mechanism for the Croton Board of Trustees to lawfully accomplish any of the three options set forth in the Lippolis report.

Mr. Masur frames this as a partisan political issue. It is not: our neighbors to the north in Cortlandt and our neighbors to the south in Ossining are both governed by Democratic Party officials and they manage to obey the law.

The state legislature can grant permission for the Croton Board of Trustees to dispose of the Gouveia property in compliance with the public trust doctrine. Since both Senator Harckham and Assembly member Galef are members of the Democratic Party and since both the Senate and Assembly are controlled by the Democratic Party, they can pass a bill and send it to the Democratic Governor for signature.

The Croton Board of Trustees could accomplish their goal in accord with the laws. They choose not to do so because they believe themselves to be above the law. That should bother all of us regardless of our political affiliation, or lack thereof.

Paul Steinberg

Separate But Equal?

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
Plessy and Ferguson? Meet Pugh and King.

2020 has been a landmark year in many unfortunate ways. A year ago, who would have thought that Croton on Hudson would have an official policy of segregated public meetings? The quickest way to bring a conversation to a screeching halt in Croton nowadays is to point out that the Croton Board of Trustees held an official meeting for “black community” residents on October 29 and a “Hispanic community” forum on November 5.

I understand that these meetings, while separate, were equal to the “public forum” on November 19, “held for the entire community.” But slapping woke labels on old practices don’t make them any less racist. What is next: water fountains labeled “BIPOC” and “non-BIPOC”?

“2020 has been a landmark year in many unfortunate ways. A year ago, who would have thought that Croton on Hudson would have an official policy of segregated public meetings? The quickest way to bring a conversation to a screeching halt in Croton nowadays is to point out that the Croton Board of Trustees held an official meeting for “black community” residents on October 29 and a “Hispanic community” forum on November 5.”

This is the typical Croton habit of trying to imitate trends and doing it poorly. As a quick linguistic digression: “black” is now capitalized in both the AP Stylebook (used by most newspapers) and the NY Times because as the Times explained: “this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity.” And “Hispanic” is offensive because it discriminates by excluding people from South America’s largest nation (who speak Portuguese) and it is doubly offensive because it is a reminder of the imperialist conquest of the indigenous peoples from whom the land was brutally stolen. The proper term used to be “Latino” but it turns out that Spanish is a gendered language and this offended American sensibilities; the correct usage is now “Latinx” even though this is not proper Spanish and in many places overseas the “Latinx” coinage is seen as an example of American arrogance riding roughshod over less powerful cultures.

Perhaps the Croton Diversity & Inclusion Committee needs to retrain the folks at the Municipal Building.

And then you get into the whole issue of who is allowed to give “input from the black [sic] community” and the “Hispanic” [sic] community. Do you set a standard, like the old “octoroon” legal standard? What about Ritchie Torres? He was just elected as “the first gay Afro Latino” member of Congress, and if he moved to Croton presumably he would have to seek a ruling on what public meeting sections he could give “input” for.

Segregation of public facilities by skin color is wrong. Full Stop. No ambiguity. It is racist, divisive, and impedes discussion of the substantive matter (in this case, police reform). We are a community, and if the behavior of municipal employees (including police officers) is so uniquely disproportionate in resident impact as to necessitate a full meeting for “black” [sic] and a separate meeting for “Hispanic” input, then all of us as residents of Croton should be concerned.

We are moving toward a community far less delineated by skin color. Many of our fellow citizens (including former President Obama) are the children of diverse parents.  Even our outgoing President is married to a Slovenian and they have Jewish grandchildren. And the segregation of “Hispanic” residents has never made sense in much of the United States. Again, to cite a notable example: George Bush’s nephew is Hispanic, and many Americans living in the southwest have Mexican and Native American parents and grandparents.

Our nation has a history, and part of that history is a racist past which we must acknowledge and condemn. At the same time, we are a nation which looks toward the future, and for that reason I hope that the Croton Board of Trustees reconsiders the practice of having “input” from residents segregated on the basis of any immutable characteristic—especially skin color.

Paul Steinberg

A Face-Saving Exit Strategy

The following letter was published in this week’s issue of the Gazette.

To the editor:
It is not easy to admit a major mistake, especially when the reasons for the failure were predicted at the outset of the venture. It helps if a face-saving exit strategy is offered. Mr. Lippolis of River Towns Realty has offered the Croton Board of Trustees an exit strategy, and they would do well to consider it.

Croton is not a place where open government is welcome, and that is once again the case with the latest chapter in the decade-long Laurel Gouveia saga. At the same time the Board of Trustees was telling us the implausible story that various village offices would be relocated to the Gouveia residence, they were secretly reviving plans to lease the house to a family seeking to live in the middle of what purports to be a public park.

Enter Mr. Lippolis. After viewing the property last summer, on August 31 he wrote a memo to Village Manager King and basically said that the “deferred maintenance” (realtor-speak for “the house is a dump”) and other factors make it impractical to attempt to rent the property as a residence. To his credit, Mr. Lippolis then offered two alternatives: rental as a “Corporate Office located in a Public Park with Hudson River views” or subdivide the residence from the park and sell the residence.

“Croton is not a place where open government is welcome, and that is once again the case with the latest chapter in the decade-long Laurel Gouveia saga. At the same time the Board of Trustees was telling us the implausible story that various village offices would be relocated to the Gouveia residence, they were secretly reviving plans to lease the house to a family seeking to live in the middle of what purports to be a public park.”

In customary Croton fashion, the residents of Croton knew nothing about what has been going on behind the scenes. But now that those who run Croton have made a decision, the documents have been made public. Well, that is not exactly true. Only some of the documents have been made public. Whatever documents relate to the public trust doctrine and potential liability thereunder remain tightly sealed from view even as the Croton Board of Trustees reviews a real estate listing agreement which contemplates alienation of public parkland for a period of at least 60 months.

Long before the Board of Trustees did Mrs. Gouveia a favor by saddling Croton taxpayers with this white elephant, village residents pointed out the serious problems with the scheme. One of those problems was the lack of an exit strategy in case the property turned out to be the money pit which we all knew it would become. The most obvious impediment is the difficulty in generating income from the property by means of rental agreements, as well as the cumbersome process if Croton decided to sell the property.

Mr. Lippolis is not so crass as to utter the phrase “public trust doctrine” but at the end of his August memo, he gently raises the issue of legality. As I noted previously (The Gazette, March 22 2018) the law in New York says that public parkland is held in trust for the public and this means that Albany must approve many of the options which Croton has proposed for Gouveia—including some of the options proposed by Mr. Lippolis. I understand that the Croton Board of Trustees is Mr. Lippolis’ client and that for years his client has adamantly refused to discuss the issue in public, but Mr. Lippolis’ avoidance of the doctrine does not make the problem go away.

I have never understood why the Croton Board of Trustees does not work with Ms. Galef and Mr. Harckham so that we can unload this money pit of a house. Mr. Lippolis’ suggestion that the property be segmented and the house sold with a sufficiently large plot of land is a win-win. It would allow for the “Laurel Gouveia Lived Here” ego billboard along Albany Post Road, it would allow the Board of Trustees to save face by maintaining the fiction that this was a smart decision, and it would save hundreds of thousands of dollars for the taxpayers of Croton.

I am a bit more risk-averse than Mr. Lippolis, but I appreciate that his considered judgment as a licensed professional is that it is within acceptable risk parameters to proceed with the commercial rental listing despite the years-long discussion as to whether the parkland can be alienated in such a manner. Berkshire Hathaway is a large company with deep pockets, so there is recourse in the event of litigation, and if they are comfortable with being the licensed agents in this transaction, that is a sign that they don’t see a problem with the public trust doctrine. It may be that those of us who have raised this issue over the years have been ignored by the Croton Board of Trustees because we are wrong on this point.

However, the failure to discuss this openly may impact the pool of prospective renters. I assume that Mr. Lippolis will have private conversations with other brokers and disclose to them how the Village of Croton intends to defend and indemnify them (and their client) in the event that the public trust doctrine becomes an issue. That is fine.

But more risk-averse commercial realtors may not even show the property given the possibility of the lease being adjudicated as void on grounds of the public trust doctrine, and a prospective lessee’s attorney may balk at not having at least an Opinion of Counsel letter and an indemnification clause in the lease. This is particularly true since the whole marketing angle is to pitch it as “Corporate Office located in a Public Park with Hudson River views.” That is an attractive pitch, but any licensed professional such as a real estate salesperson or attorney will immediately think “public trust doctrine.” So why not deal with this up front now rather than after some company has sunk tens of thousands of dollars into buildout?

Being a politician in Croton means never having to admit you made a mistake; you just force the taxpayers to bear the consequences. So our Board of Trustees will never agree to get rid of the whole Gouveia property. But Mr. Lippolis’ suggestion is a reasonable compromise, and as I recall the only obligation the Village of Croton has is to keep up that huge “Laurel Gouveia” sign and display that creepy Hummel statue of the children.

Selling off the decrepit house and as much of the non-wild land (such as roadways etc.) as possible will reduce the burden on Croton taxpayers at a time when we are facing uncertain financial times ahead. The third option proposed by Mr. Lippolis in his August memorandum is about the most sensible thing I have heard in the last 5 years of the Gouveia saga, and provides a pathway to resolution for the taxpayers of Croton.

Paul Steinberg