Sonn Drive, Wasted Youth, Giving Notice—Items on the Agenda for City Council Wednesday - February 24, 2010

The city council's agenda for Wednesday, February 24, 2010 is out. See you at 8pm in the Council Room at Rye City Hall or on Cablevision Channel 75 and Verizon Channel 39. We'll also see you on the Internet (next day) at http://rye.peg.tv.

Note there will be an executive session immediately preceding the council meeting at 7:00pm to discuss "labor relations". Let's check the batting order and highlights from the 18 agenda items.

We don't see it on the agenda, but MyRye.com will be listening for an update on the Rye Golf Club sledding ban debacle.

• Open Mic. Residents may be heard who have matters to discuss that do not appear on the agenda. Always a crowd pleaser...
• Mayor’s Manager Report.
• H2O. Consultant’s Report on Hydrology and Flood Related Items.
• Purchase. City Planner’s Report on Central Business District Streetscape Plan.
• My Sonn... Consultant’s Report on Pedestrian Safety at Sonn Drive.
• Go Away. Public Hearing to de-map Edgar Place.
• Don't Waste Your Youth (Committee). Public Hearing to amend Chapter 10, “Committees” of the Code of the City of Rye by rescinding Article III to dissolve the Youth Advisory Committee.
• Environmental ER? Discussion of SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) Notice for Port Chester to serve as Lead Agency for the Redevelopment of the former United Hospital Site by Starwood Capital Management.
• You are Building What? Consideration to set a public hearing to amend Chapter 53, “Architectural Review” of the Code of the City of Rye by amending §53-3 “Meetings and Procedures of Board” regarding noticing requirements for applications and to rescind Chapter 68-8(G) “Building and
  Demolition Permits” and consideration to set a public hearing to amend the Code of the City of Rye Chapters and Sections: §170-6(F) “Subdivision of Land, Procedures for Tentative Approval of Preliminary Layout”; §170-7(C) “Procedures for Approval of Subdivision Plat”; §197-7 “Zoning, Site Development Plan”; §197-10 “Zoning, Uses Permitted Subject to additional Standards”;§197-81(F)”Zoning Appellate Jurisdiction of Board”; §195-5(C) “Wetlands and Watercourses, Public Hearings and Public Notification by Applicant”; §196-15 “Wireless Communications Facilities, Public Hearings Required”, regarding noticing requirements.
• That's Special. Schedule a special meeting of the City Council on Monday, March 15, at 7:00 p.m.
  for an update on the City’s financial position.

The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Wednesday, March 10, 2010.

Note there will be an executive session immediately preceding the council meeting at 7:00pm to discuss "labor relations". Let's check the batting order and highlights from the 18 agenda items.

We don't see it on the agenda, but MyRye.com will be listening for an update on the Rye Golf Club sledding ban debacle.

Comments

[Jim Amico]

Real Deal,

Got it.

On the flip side, enforcement or not, statistics or not, I would much rather be proactive in reducing the amount of speeding, cell phone driving and what have you before these habits are credited to an accident or worse, and in my opinion it's not a matter of if but when!

Better to side with caution than not!

[The real deal]

Jim,

Let me just rephrase it in the affirmative so there is no question what I'm saying.

If you take the data available at face value a case could be made for the following statement: "Increasing enforcement, no mater how much it is increased, will not stop or lower pedestrian accidents." That is what I'm saying and that is why I question the amount of time spent on enforcement. I understand the sample size is small. I'm just taking it on face value without trying to go into statistical significance. If anyone disagrees with that statement and says enforcement will lower pedestrian accidents then I say "Show me the data that supports that conclusion because there is NO data that supports that". It's counter intuitive but, what I will also say is anyone questioning the statement made by Brian Dempsey that a stop sign might cause more problems than it prevents should think about what he's saying. That's also counter intuitive but he's basing that statement on a much bigger sample size.

Good Luck.

[Robert Zahm]

The City has posted a copy of the Sonn / BPR materials presented at their last meeting. http://www.ryeny.gov/planning/Reports/BPR%20and%20Sonn%20Alternatives%20web%2001.pdf

To summarize:
1. BPR Diet - $65k
2. Cross walk - 3 versions adding incrementally to BPR diet $15k, $20-50k, $55k (each adds on top of the other)
3. Signal @ Sonn - $165k on top of 2a, 2b, or 2c.

[Jim Amico]

Real Deal,

LMAO @ your affluent high school analysis, thnx.

I think I'm starting to see where you are going with this and I can't say I disagree.

Speaking for myself, I know I have never credited the lack in enforcement as the reason behind all the accidents. That is not to say that I believe we don't have a problem in regards to enforcement.

I personally do not credit the 50% drop in violations written to increased better driving behavior. I strongly believe we have a big problem and as of January this year the RPD has been respectful to that and I am grateful for it!

As to your question, what I think your saying, and if I'm wrong please correct me, is since no one has credited the lack of enforcement as the reason for the accidents then what is the reason and why are we not addressing it.

I'm guessing your opinion is the children are not educated enough to navigate the streets without adult supervision.

My opinion, there are several culprits in the problem & many participants to the solution.

Do the children need to be educated in navigating the streets, ABSOLUTELY!

Does the RPD need to clamp down(enforce) on speeders, cell phone drivers,etc; ABSOLUTELY!

Does the City need to adapt more signage including stop signs, ABSOLUTELY!

Do we as Parents/Adults need to change our poor behaviors and assist/volunteer in all this, ABSOLUTELY!

I attend a lot of these discussions and I can say there is progress even tho there is no visible action to back this up,so until then, it is what is has always been in the past...TALK!

[The real deal]

Jim,

Remember back in high school during science lab? You were taught to write down your hypothesis before you started the experiment. Your hypothesis was based on some "bias" or previous knowledge. For example, say you were trying to prove that liquids contracted when cooled. Using water, you wrote down that all the cold water would sink to the bottom of the pool because when you went swimming the cold water was always at the bottom of the pool. You also know from the book that liquids contract and get more dense when cooled. So you started to cool the pool. ( I went to a very affluent high school) If you left the pool side before the water on the bottom hit 34 degrees you would say that you proved your hypothesis, that the coldest water sank to the bottom. But as we know, that's not true. The coldest water floats and is less dense. Totally counter intuitive. Lets jump to pedestrian safety. An intuitive hypothesis would be that more pedestrians would be hit by cars disobeying the laws than cars obeying the laws. As we stand right now, the data doesn't support that hypothesis. In fact, there has not been ANY pedestrians struck by a car disobeying the traffic laws. Again, totally counter intuitive. WHY? Do you think this phenomenon merits some research? Are we going to find out WHY or are we just going to ignore it? No time has been spent discussing this "nightmare" and all time has been spent on enforcement which everyone ASSUMES would make pedestrians safer. Let's look at enforcement. Tedc posted last night that years ago AT LEAST 10 tickets a day were written. Does that mean enforcement was higher or drivers were more reckless? People are ASSUMING the reason ticket volumes are down today is because enforcement is down BUT could it be that drivers are more careful today? We would need to make sure the same practices were performed by the police today as yesteryear AND have them write more than 10 tickets a day before we can say that people today drive worse than people of yesteryear. Jovanovich sarcastically commented at a Council meeting that Rye must have sobered up a lot recently because fewer DWI's were issued. Do you think people are more careful about drinking and driving today than yesteryear? Is it possible that drivers are more careful today than years ago? If so, maybe enforcement isn't the problem. All I'm saying is look at the data objectively. Am I saying enforcement should be higher? No, Am I saying enforcement should be lower? No. Am I saying that enforcement shouldn't be looked at? No. What I'm saying is that the "nightmare", as displayed by the data as I learned in school, isn't being addressed. Until it is, the nightmare will continue. What I see going on right now is people going off on tangent lines instead of addressing THE problem. Don't worry, I'll spare you the geometry lesson for today.

[Jim Amico]

Real Deal,
Thanks for understanding me.

I need some help in the department of understanding your point.

For me, the subject of enforcement is simple, I know as most of Rye knows what happened to Jarrid from a vehicle during 30 or below, so I could only imagine what will happen when a vehicle doing greater speeds will do to a child when struck.

I don't want anyone joining the circle my family has been chosen for. My fight with enforcement began with the rejection of a simple request for a Stop Sign and crosswalks on Midland. I then decided to expose all the dangers on Midland which unfortunately included and exposed the inactions of the RPD. These are not things I made up but facts that I ignored far far too long that needed addressing.
Like I said "I never asked for this".

Over all, enforcement in Rye has really taken a back seat. Other than the obvious concern for safety I don't know what agenda Bob Zahm could have.

What I'm confused about with your question is:
I don't recall anyone blaming the cause of the accidents on the lack of enforcement. Therefore, I don't understand why you want it addressed?
As for writing it off,speaking for myself, I think by saying it repeatedly would be considered not writing it off. Other than the guy not paying attention and his age I said he broke no laws when he hit Jarrid.

Are you looking for the RPD to get some kind of thank you for this? I'm not sure what your seeking by addressing this?

[The real deal]

Tedc,

Have you not supported causes on this site which were based in lawsuits, ended up in lawsuits, or insinuated lawsuits? Am I wrong?

[tedc]

Real deal – hmmm - here’s your words from below -

“Remember the old days when you could sleigh ride on the Rye Golf course? Well the reason that was is because there were no adults around like tedc. His actions, and the actions of many in this town recently, have put a stop to that priviledge. Trumpeting "exposure" and "liability" constantly on this site has it's ramifications.”

And here are my words defending childhood sledding in Rye. So exactly what (as Mayor Otis always used to say) are ‘ya talking about now?

"I remember getting hurt sledding at Rye Golf. One time I hit a bolder then ended up in the creek. I was able to limp home shivering, felt lucky and was back on the hill the following week. Others I knew broke arms and dislocated shoulders over the years we sledded there. Everyone went back to the hill when healed. Nobody from my group would trade those childhood experiences for the world. Put up tough signs reflecting the legal liability of the parents of the children. They bear the burden – as do the participating minors – of assuming the risks including outright death."

[The real deal]

Jim,

Like I said, I wish you the best and I hope you get your stop sign. I totally understand your concerns. My problem is that no one is addressing the fact that enforcement wasn't the problem with the accidents. How can you write that off? It's a legitimate question that refuses to be answered. The longer it isn't answered by Mr. Zahm the more I believe he has an agenda. As far as tedc is concerned, the guy should look in the mirror. Remember the old days when you could sleigh ride on the Rye Golf course? Well the reason that was is because there were no adults around like tedc. His actions, and the actions of many in this town recently, have put a stop to that priviledge. Trumpeting "exposure" and "liability" constantly on this site has it's ramifications.

[Jim Amico]

I'm sure I will get my head cut off for engaging here but what the hell, won't be the first time,lol!

Real Deal,
What I printed and handed to the Council related to "MANAGEMENT" as it relates to "ENFORCEMENT" or the lack there of!

In the past I use to blame the officers until I was woken up to all the "management issues" which are supposably creating what I and many other residents are witnessing, inaction and lack of enforcement.

There is no doubt that "SPEEDING" is a major issue in Rye and if you disagree with that then tell me and I will stop wasting my time with you!

Just because no one was issued a summons in any one of the many accidents involving children does not mean we do not have problems that need to be addressed!

There have been several incidents over the years at the intersection of Palisades/Midland. This can not and should no longer be ignored!
My son was killed by someone, as you put it,"obeying" the speed limit, I have never denied that or said otherwise, this does not mean you get to do 60 in a 20!

As I said 100 times over;
"we know what 30mph can do to a kid, should we wait to see what a 3,ooolb speeding bullet can do"?

What chance will a 70lb kid have when a 3,00lb vehicle doing 60mph hits him/her?