Critics attacked the authority’s process for selecting a site, saying it should have involved community input from the beginning — well before a contract was signed.
Some speakers argued that since the overcrowding in Bayside was partly caused by students traveling from other parts of the city, new schools should be opened in those areas instead.
Several speakers directed their fury at Paul A. Vallone, the councilman who represents Bayside. Opponents of the proposal have complained that he has not taken a sufficiently aggressive stand against the project. His position on the matter could influence the rest of the Council, they contend.
“Can a council member be impeached or recalled?” one speaker asked, provoking a chorus of cheers and whoops.
At the conclusion of the two-hour meeting, the community board overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, with only one member voting for it.
On Monday, Mr. Vallone issued a statement saying that as a result of the vote, he would “stand in opposition to this site, despite the community board’s repeated requests for a specialized high school in the district for nearly a decade.”
A representative from the Construction Authority, however, said the city would nonetheless press forward with its plan for the new high school.
46 comments:
“Can a council member be impeached or recalled?” one speaker asked, provoking a chorus of cheers and whoops.
At the conclusion of the two-hour meeting, the community board overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, with only one member voting for it.
On Monday, Mr. Vallone issued a statement saying that as a result of the vote, he would “stand in opposition to this site, despite the community board’s repeated requests for a specialized high school in the district for nearly a decade.”
A representative from the Construction Authority, however, said the city would nonetheless press forward with its plan for the new high school.
---
This article, while typical of the "balancing act" BS that the NY Times does, is pretty accurate as to the blow by blow of what happened on Monday night at CB11.
Just a few corrections:
200+ people, not 150 - not including the Community Board members - were in attendance. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the school, not three, and over 40 people spoke against the school, including myself, not 30.
More importantly:
After MONTHS of listening to Vallone lie to and bully people by telling, shouting at and instructing the public that this school was going to happen - no matter what - Vallone blinked. And, as is usual with cowards, he didn't have the decency or courage to show up to what was the most important meeting at CB11 in a decade and only responded to the press - not to his constituents.
However, this does not mean that he isn't still pushing this terrible school situation behind the scenes.
The way the City Council works is simple: the Councilmembers follow the decision of the Councilperson - in this case, Vallone - whose district is being impacted by a land use or school placement decision.
As I said at the hearing: unless Vallone votes "NO" and the rest of the Council votes "NO" it will be a complete fraud of a vote, as he will try to vote "NO" and ask the rest of the Council to vote "YES" in an attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
Do not be fooled by this sorry excuse of a public official. Send Councilmember Vallone the message he deserves: NO MEANS NO.
Paul Graziano
I seem to recall Liz Crowley making a deal with the speaker to get the Maspeth high school passed despite community opposition. She would save face by voting no, while the rest of the council voted yes. That's exactly what will happen here and I think you hit the nail on the head.
Crappy, you are right on target. This is exactly what I'm worried about - and all of his constituents should be as well. Voters of the 19th Council District: in the next few years, don't forget this shameful episode!
One additional comment:
Senator Tony Avella did a yeoman's job of communicating to the audience exactly what has been going on with this situation for the last six months. I want to personally thank the Senator for all of the leadership, hard work and countless hours that he has put in to help us stop this unbelievable abuse perpetrated - again, just like the Keil Brothers site - by Councilmember Vallone and the Schools Construction Authority on Bayside.
Paul Graziano
This is exactly what happens when people vote blindly for someone just because they saw a stupid lawn sign on some other schmucks lawn. If anyone had done just the tiniest bit of research they would have found that Vallone had done nothing for any community ever!!! All he wants is to climb the political ladder. Paul Graziano has been zoning, battling DOB, protesting illegal development and the community's "go to" guy for 20 years.
Shame of all of you who voted for Vallone.
It's not the kids coming in from other areas that are overcrowding the schools here, it is the dobs who doesn't do their job correctly that are overcrowding the schools here. When you have 4 families living in a two family house, then what did you expect to happen?
Yup, keep electing those liberals and democrats. They think they know what is best for you and the community and they don't give a damn about your opinions because all of you are dumb schmucks who will e-elect them anyway.
Bunch of freakin' lemmings!
Expect Vallone to play musical chairs when it comes time to reappoint the Community Board.
"It's not the kids coming in from other areas that are overcrowding the schools here, it is the dobs who doesn't do their job correctly that are overcrowding the schools here. When you have 4 families living in a two family house, then what did you expect to happen? "
Yes it is, you didn't see the memo that 60% of the kids aren't from the district? Just look at who goes to the school and who lives around there.
Stinky is a bully, and you can find bullies on the Left and on the Right. Let's rally behind one strong candidate who can oppose him when he's up for re-election - we don't want/need multiple opponents who will split the anti-Stinky vote and allow him to win (again).
The community needs to suggest an alternate usage for the site, not just to oppose the school.
Big Pauly needs to make those against the school
And offer they can't refuse
Maybe spread around a little of that cash the stork keeps dropping him,
If you know what I mean.
Please show some gratitude for the Vollone Dynasty
This family of dedicated public servants could have gone into the public sector and made Real Money,oh wait,let me see if I can put that another way
This family could,oh forget it,politics is where the money is,
I'm going to have to get more than 2 bucks a post if I'm going to defend this BS I Quit.
The community needs to suggest an alternate usage for the site, not just to oppose the school.
It was gonna simply convert to a Korean Church. But vallone opposed it the purchase, I heard.
Sign the petition (if you haven't already), if you are against it (need 5000 signatures at least):
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bayside-residents-opposing-new-school-on-32nd
So many of the parish people who were schmucks and agreed to put his lawn sign up are appalled and deeply regret their support. I know a lot of them from the neighborhood and when we get together it's very obvious that no matter what BS they tell this guy to his face the next time they are in the privacy of the voting booth they will be voting him the hell out. People are disgusted. Start with the parents on his kid's soccer team and his fellow members on the SAAvellino Father's Guild. Haven't heard a good word about this guy pretty much since he got elected.
Peter Vallone is a civil judge as of last night. Barf.
the D.O.E. overcrowds the P.S. by busing SPECIAL ED. (out of district)groups into local buildings.7 S.E.pupils /classrm,that can seat 25 reg. pupils.eg ,the first floor of the P.S.130 building (F.Lewis/42Ave,Bayside) has seats for 260 reg. pupils,but contains for the past 32 yrs 35-50 S.E. the D.O.E.adds this scam into the overcrowding numbers of a K-8 building. the S.E. are in the H.S.'s as well,taking rooms from the local pupils.
see:S.E.P.S.993 building location sites.
Bayside/Auburndale is the preferred location for these out of district S.E.groups (P.S.177,I.S.25 P.S.41 P.S.130 etc,etc.
thus the S.C.A.requiring NEW.EXPENSIVE TAXPAYER buildings....for who's kids to occupy ? Central American ,Iraqi,Syrian?????see the battle of Tours 732A.D.
Not showing up for the meeting shows up Paul Vallone to be the cowardly political thug that he really is.
Remember this on primary day.....unless you want some more Vallone-y baloney for another term.
That dumb goombah cannot control his rage and dislike for those he considers beneath him. In other words his constituents.
That is the other reason he did not make an appearance. Il Duce thinks he knows it all and tries to impose his will upon his district like a true tyrant. He even shaves his dome like Mussolini used too. A real Mafioso supremo!
Is he getting a kickback from some mob SCA subcontractor for pushing this school?
Bring in the feds!
Some alternate uses:
"Affordable" housing?
Drug rehab center?
Methadone clinic?
Homeless shelter?
Halfway house for all the "non violent" drug offenders being released?
Hey! we really do need a Walmart!!!
You know you will not get a park!
You must try selling the old "Midnight Basketball" thing...
"Yup, keep electing those liberals and democrats. They think they know what is best for you and the community and they don't give a damn about your opinions because all of you are dumb schmucks who will e-elect them anyway."
Right. What we need is Republican leadership. The kind of leadership that will do away with job killing communist regulations that are crippling the Real Estate industry in this city.
Idiot.
The SCA showed its disdain for the community when they said at the meeting that they will continue on this project regardless. So much for the community input they allegedly were seeking.
Maybe the Community Board will fix it...
The City Council may vote for or against, but they do not have approval/disapproval authority.
As you can see below the city council "review[s]" the site selection and the SCA "may" revise, but the decision lies with the SCA. Whether the City Council votes for or against, it is just a recommendation. You wish the council member was more vocal with his opposition, I get it. But don't misrepresent how the decision is made. I think a civics lesson is in dire need for the community members who are against this site. The State legislation is the guiding policy.
Public Authorities, Article 8, Title 6, Sections 1725-1748
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:
§ 1732. City approval of sites. 1. Following the hearings held
pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title, but
prior to initiating construction of new educational facilities, the
authority shall submit the site plan of such projects to the mayor and
the council for review, provided, however, that such review shall be
limited to the site selected for the project.
2. The site plan shall be deemed to be approved by the city unless
within twenty days of such submission by the authority it is disapproved
by the mayor or by the council, acting by a two-thirds vote. The council
may, by a two-thirds vote, override any disapproval of the mayor within
twenty days following receipt of notice of such disapproval from the
mayor. The notice provision contained herein shall be deemed sufficient
for action by the mayor and the council notwithstanding any provision of
law, local or general, or charter to the contrary.
3. The city may not require the authority to conduct any further
hearings or seek any further approvals as a condition for receiving city
approval.
4. If the council or mayor disapproves the site plan, (a) the
authority may, after consultation with the city board, revise such site
plan for resubmission pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one
of this title and this section or (b) the authority may, with the
agreement of the city board and chancellor, eliminate such site plan
from the five-year educational facilities capital plan.
In other words, Vallone and his supporters are full of shit as usual?
Wait - are you saying Vallone only has to get 1 more than 1/3 of the council to vote no in order to 86 this school? That should be a piece of cake!
I mean that the City Council vote has no bearing on whether the school gets built. It is purely a formality. The decision is completely at the discretion of the SCA. As a state authority they are provided this authority from the State legislature. The City Council can provide a vote and make recommendations like the CB can, or any resident.
The "86-ing" of this school will only come from the SCA. That is the law.
Public Authorities, Article 8, Title 6, Sections 1725-1748
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:
It is just much easier to blame an individual who has no authority than the existing system. Complaints of the system are justified but laying blame on the CM, in all due respect, is misdirected and makes it seem like those who oppose don't even know where the decisions are made. I keep seeing complaints throughout the city about school siting laid onto the council. I can't stand them either and wish all the "bums" are fired. But its like blaming POTUS for my subway fare going up.
As you can see below the city council "review[s]" the site selection and the SCA "may" revise, but the decision lies with the SCA. Whether the City Council votes for or against, it is just a recommendation. You wish the council member was more vocal with his opposition, I get it. But don't misrepresent how the decision is made. I think a civics lesson is in dire need for the community members who are against this site. The State legislation is the guiding policy.
You are not reading the law correctly.
The law states that the City Council or Mayor may disapprove any SCA proposal. The City Council must disapprove with a 2/3 majority, or at least 35 of 51 Councilmembers.
If the Mayor disapproves a SCA proposal, the City Council can override the Mayor with a 2/3 majority, or at least 35 of 51 Councilmembers.
If a proposal is disapproved, the SCA then has the option of A) bringing a revised site plan to the Mayor or City Council or B) dropping the proposal.
The point is that if Vallone votes NO and the Council follows because it's his home district and it's a local issue - which is the normal way the Council operates - then it's over.
If Vallone is trying to pretend he's against the school and votes NO while the rest of the Council votes YES - which is what happens when Councilmembers LIE to their constituents by pretending to be against something while telling the other Councilmembers that it's ok to vote for it - then we know exactly who to blame.
Paul Graziano
Paul: I (and unfortunately the state and city) respectfully disagree with you on the interpretation of the law.
Nothing you cite contains anything that explicitly provides the City Council with authority.
Just because they approve or disapproves does not provide them with the authority.
You seem to not understand the words as they are written. This law has been reviewed and acted on, for years since it was enacted, and the precedent and interpretation contradicts your description. I am not trying to sound condescending but you are really misreading this law.
The entirety of the text that you have cited is written to provide the city with input, not a final decision, to the authority.
Sorry but if the action doesn't make it through ULURP then it doesn't get built. You're pulling this out of your ass, and it's wrong.
Don't blame (or bad mouth) the messenger; here is the law:
Public Authorities, Article 8, Title 6, Sections 1725-1748
§ 1730. Exemption from land use review procedures and other requirements. 1. […] neither (a) the establishment or amendment of an educational facilities capital plan and actions relating to the financing thereof, […] shall be subject to the provisions of any general, special or local law, city charter, administrative code, ordinance or resolution governing uniform land use review procedures, any other land use planning review and approvals, historic preservation procedures, architectural reviews, franchise approvals and other state or local review and approval procedures governing the use of land and the improvements thereon within the city. Capital projects for educational facilities to be undertaken by the authority shall not be subject to the provisions of the charter of the city relating to site selection, land use review procedures […] The authority shall be subject to zoning regulations to the same extent that the city board is subject to such regulations, if at all.
§ 1732. City approval of sites. 1. Following the hearings held pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title, but prior to initiating construction of new educational facilities, the
authority shall submit the site plan of such projects to the mayor and the council for review, provided, however, that such review shall be limited to the site selected for the project. […] 3. The city may not require the authority to conduct any further hearings or seek any further approvals as a condition for receiving city approval. 4. If the council or mayor disapproves the site plan, (a) the authority may, after consultation with the city board, revise such site plan for resubmission pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title and this section or (b) the authority may, with the agreement of the city board and chancellor, eliminate such site plan from the five-year educational facilities capital plan.
The key words for the above cited law is "may" and "review". The city reviews and provides their approval and the authority may eliminate such plan. But as the law states, the SCA has final authority. That is pretty much the whole idea of a Public Benefit Authority; they are a state created entity not subject to city rule. This legal entity has existed for a long time and most people don't understand, or recognize, it's authority.
I am not looking at whether something is "good" or "bad", or "right" or "wrong". I am just reading, not interpreting, long established State law.
The key phrase is here: "4. If the council or mayor disapproves the site plan, (a) the authority may, after consultation with the city board, revise such site plan for resubmission pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title and this section OR (b) the authority may, with the agreement of the city board and chancellor, eliminate such site plan from the five-year educational facilities capital plan."
There are only 2 choices here for the SCA at this point. There isn't a third "full steam ahead" option. Why would you think that they would barrel ahead without either changing and resubmitting or eliminating it?
There is no way in hell that the SCA is going to proceed with this plan if the full council and the community board shoot it down. It's just not gonna happen.
Yes QnsCrapper, read that out loud: "may [...] revise [...] or eliminate".
NOT "must revise or eliminate".
Without getting into the whole origin and framework of the State's Public Authority laws, I can't make my explanation any more simple. It is what it is.
I can't force you to read the law. Good day.
I am not saying you have to agree, but I do implore all the readers of this blog thread to read the law. Its actually not that long or wonky compared to many other phone book-sized laws.
It will at least help frame the debate so that the community understands the law so they can discuss it intelligently when the debate comes forward about school site selections.
Aaand who has oversight of the SCA? A 3-member board of trustees appointed by the mayor!
You think the mayor's board is going to go against the NYC Council? Nope. Not gonna happen.
Since the SCA has already decided that they will continue with this application, then yes, actually they will.
They are appointed by the mayor but do not serve at his pleasure. That is meant to maintain their objectivity with these types of decisions. Even if the Mayor tells them how to vote, he also does not have that authority.
Please read the law. Again it is a short one.
How about we just lobby to have the council vote go our way and then see what happens? After all, according to a) and b) above, they very well might change their minds. Folding like a cheap tent is not an option.
Might I add that if a) or b) are not employed as you are assuming, then it just proves Vallone to be a poor representative, because he should be making clear to SCA that this is not an acceptable site. (Instead he dropped the dime about the site to them. It was planned to be a korean social service organization before he started pushing the high school idea).
"Please read the law. Again it is a short one."
I read it and it seems to indicate that while the school is not subject to ULURP, it is subject to a legislative action by the council. Bottom line: it gets nixed at the council, it's done.
I will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bayside-residents-opposing-new-school-on-32nd
Hey whatever happen to this site??!!!
Post a Comment