Many who attended the Physical Services Committee hearing in May at the County Courthouse may think that the Peekskill Hollow Road issue has been resolved and the project is no more.  Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.  After attending the Physical Services Committee meeting on August 25^th, a meeting that none of the Putnam Valley Town Board attended, it remains clear that County Executive Bondi and Putnam Valley Town Supervisor Tendy continue to disregard the will of their constituents (and the resolution of the County Legislature) and are pushing for the so-called “improvements” of Peekskill Hollow Road.   Mr. Tendy goes so far as to call anyone who opposes the project “obstructionists” and “malcontents” who “want time to stand still”.  I opposed the project as it was presented at the public hearing not as a malcontent but as an advocate for public safety and responsible government.    Most of the others who opposed the project at this public hearing were also in favor of safety improvements but not the wholesale changes to the road that were presented.  Had Mr. Tendy stayed to listen to the voices of his constituents he may have learned this.

            Those pushing this plan contend that the road is dangerous and Mr. Bondi cites the “many severe and deadly accidents” along the road as a compelling reason for this work.  However, in the project report (PIN 8757.48) the accident rate on Peekskill Hollow Road is exactly the same as the statewide average for a rural road and during the period reviewed during the preparation of this report there were no fatal accidents.  In an internet search, I could find no data on fatal accidents on Peekskill Hollow Road in more than a decade.  Perhaps Mr. Bondi can present the data to which he refers so we can all understand his statement about the danger of this road.

             Simply counting the accidents is not sufficient to label a road dangerous; the contributing factors of the accidents should have been analyzed to determine if the road can be blamed for these accidents.  If we review this data I suspect that speeding and other unsafe driving will be the greatest contributor to these accidents.  At the hearing, the engineer reported that virtually all traffic on Peekskill Hollow Road exceeds the 40 MPH speed limit.  Traffic enforcement can address speeding and other traffic offenses and reduce the accident rate. 

            The plan also calls for installation of four foot paved shoulders along the entire length of Peekskill Hollow Road.  No one could tell me how much additional space needs to be leveled and cleared to accommodate four foot shoulders but adding at least eight feet is hardly “mildly expansive” as one Legislator described the work.  In many areas this will destroy old stone walls, encroach on yards, and come dangerously close to homes.  It is suggested that these shoulders are necessary for safety in case a car becomes disabled somewhere along the road.  True, if a car becomes disabled and there is no way to move from the travel lane it is an impediment to traffic but if vehicles are traveling at the posted speed limit they can safely navigate around such a hazard.  Using this reasoning there should be no trees along the road as they might fall down and obstruct a lane and we should have paved shoulders on every road, not just Peekskill Hollow.  State Routes 301, 6, 9, 9D, 52, and others don’t always have a four foot paved shoulder and they carry far more traffic at higher legal speeds than Peekskill Hollow Road.  Why aren’t these roads being slated for such an overhaul?

            Environmental concerns have been dismissed as frivolous or misguided and one elected official contends that safety trumps the environment.  Protecting the water is the ultimate public safety concern; without water we can’t drink, cook, or fight fires.  Eight feet of additional pavement for shoulders adjacent to the Hollow Brook and area wetlands is hazardous to the environment.  Where will the storm runoff go?  Where will the salt and other pollutants go?  Without answers to these and other questions how can we be so sure that the environment is protected?

            Other issues with the plan have been brought to the attention of the Physical Services Committee and hopefully we will be able to resolve them before any more funds are expended or damaging work is started.  Safety and drainage improvements are needed and are the right thing to do but that doesn’t require decimating the rural character of Peekskill Hollow Road by clearing trees and widening the road to install these shoulders.

            I applaud Legislator Tamagna and the other members of the Physical Services Committee for their attention to this matter and hope that the Putnam Valley Town Board follows their example by listening to their constituents and being responsive to them.  

Christopher M. Lieberman

At the August 19th Putnam Valley Town Board meeting, the subject of Peekskill Hollow Road came up, as it often does.

During the discussion, it was stated that the County is reevaluating the phase one project (Oregon Corners to Adam’s Corners). Supervisor Tendy said that such a review would be an act of cowardice on the part of our county legislators. It is not unusual that he would think that anyone taking into account the views of residents would somehow be doing wrong.

In fact, the reason that the legislators are taking another look at the project is that a large number of residents of both Putnam Valley and Kent have made it clear that they don’t want the project to move forward. At the most well attended county meeting in memory, people from all parts of Putnam Valley, and from Kent made their points eloquently and thoughtfully. To their credit, our county legislators are listening.

Mr. Tendy made some comments at the start of the county meeting. They were mostly derisive, ridiculing the huge number of residents opposed to the plan. After making his comments, he left. As is typical, it was of no importance to him what his constituents thought. Sadly, no other representative from the Town thought the county meeting worth attending.

Also typical, when his ‘cowardice’ remarks at the Town Board meeting were questioned, he became angry and disrespectful. None of the other Board members stopped him. It is this treatment of Town residents, and the fact that the other Board members allow it, that has produced meetings with very few attendees. Our neighbors are not willing to be bullied, and they are afraid of reprisals. Who can blame them? This is a sad state of affairs in Putnam Valley.

Sam Davis

Business owners and residents were not consulted about the plan as it was developed by Tendy and a New Jersey planning company. They brought their concerns to Town Hall.

Oregon Corners Plan – April 1, 2009

Posted using ShareThis

• Senate is said to seek more in income tax from wealthy. (March 18, 2009)

• Tax hike is textbook politics (March 14, 2009)

• State must return to progressive-income taxation  (Feb 23, 2009)
  

• Road renovation stokes controversy (Feb 11, 2009)

Assemblywoman Galef spoke before her Saturday, Feb. 7 Town Meeting at the Putnam Valley Library.

Property tax relief faces uphill battle

By Jim Roberts

Photo by Jim Roberts

A large crowd gathers at the Croton Municipal Building Thursday to hear Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and State Assemblywoman Sandy Galef discuss the Suozzi Commission’s proposal to cap property taxes at four percent.

CROTON – A show of hands confirmed that almost 100 percent of those attending a forum on property tax reform believe that taxes are too high and relief is needed.

article continues here