This may be a first. I'm not sure I've ever written a column about a column in another newspaper. And I've certainly never written a column about wine. But here goes.
Last Wednesday, New York Times wine critic Eric Asimov turned his attention to Long Island wines in his column "The Pour." Flipping through the pages of the "Dining In" section last Wednesday morning — a section I rarely find time to peruse, especially on a Wednesday — my heart skipped a beat when I saw the words Long Island in the title of Asimov's column. Would he pan the wines of our emerging wine region? As the headline came into focus — "On Long Island, a Case for Respect" — I felt instant relief. If Mr. Asimov is talking about respect for Long Island wines in the title, this wasn't going to be bad. I reached for my reading glasses and sat down.
Why the fleeting moment of panic? Why do I care? I don't own a vineyard or a stake in one. Heck, I don't even have a wine cellar, never mind the wine to fill it.
But I'm invested in the Long Island wine region, and you should be, too. Long Island wineries are central players — if not the central players — in our evolving North Fork economy.
The success of Long Island as a wine region has a direct bearing on our quality of life on the North Fork. Look around. Those acres and acres planted in grapes, stretching out before you as far as the eye can see in some places? Envision acres and acres of single-family homes dotting the landscape, because were it not for the success of our fledgling wine region, that's probably what you'd be looking at.
Many moons ago, as a Riverhead town councilwoman considering zoning initiatives aimed at preserving farmland, I was told (repeatedly) by Long Island Farm Bureau executive director Joe Gergela: "The best way to preserve farmland is to preserve farming." He was, obviously, correct. We grappled with that concept and with each other. Farm Bureau asked government to get and stay out of the way — something vineyard owners I'm sure would agree with today, 20 years later.
While we were arguing these points in Town Hall, people like the Hargraves, Lenzes, Massouds, Bedells and Goerlers were planting grapes, tending their vines and experimenting. As a result of their efforts, the idea of a Long Island wine region took root — and grew. People in Southold town government are still debating how best to preserve farmland but the vineyard owners — they've done it.
The way of life we enjoy on the North Fork — its rural character and beauty — is directly dependent on the continued growth, development and success of the Long Island wine region. This is not to minimize the importance of other agricultural pursuits in these parts, of course. But the dominant feature of the agricultural and economic landscape on the North Fork is becoming the vineyard. What would happen to our tourism-based economy if acres of grapes gave way to housing, and the North Fork's rural landscape became a suburban one?
If you appreciate the North Fork as it is, you have, in my opinion, an obligation to support the Long Island wine region. What does that mean?
For Times/Review Newspapers, it means publishing Wine Press, the official guide to Long Island Wine Country. We started publishing Wine Press in the early 1990s as an expression of our commitment to the local wine industry and to a sustainable economy tied to North Fork's rural character and beauty.
For individuals, supporting our wine region means, first and foremost, if you drink wine, drink Long Island wine. There's a local wine — a good local wine, as Mr. Asimov pointed out in his column last week — for every taste and purpose. You may be able to pick up a cheaper bottle of wine imported from France or Italy, but then you're shipping your dollars out of town, instead of supporting your local economy and your own quality of life. If a local wine costs $5 more, think of it as a direct investment in local farmland preservation. I'd rather pay a little more for a bottle of fine local wine to preserve local farmland than pay higher property taxes for the services required by all the houses that'll be built where the vineyards once were. Wouldn't you?
Ask for Long Island wine in restaurants, especially local restaurants, but ask for them wherever you go. Patronize local restaurants that have Long Island wines on their wine lists, and let the restaurant staff know you appreciate their local wine list and dine there, in part, because of it.
Visit the wineries, and take your visiting friends and family on a tour. I did this last summer for the first time in a very long time and it was a great deal of fun. It's also educational, and to really appreciate wine and the region we're living in, it's essential to learn something about it. And don't be intimidated. I still can't quite pick up all the subtle flavors that wine experts detect in a glass of wine. But that's never detracted from my enjoyment.
Back to Asimov's column: He noted that our region gets very little attention in the wine world. (It was featured in a big spread in Wine Spectator last month, though.) Mr. Asimov's assessment of the local wines (both white and red) he tasted at a dinner arranged for him by Charles Massoud of Paumanok Vineyards in Aquebogue was very positive.
"... Long Island wines are proving themselves worthy of respect," Mr. Asimov wrote. "The best have a style of their own, leaner than the California wines with lower alcohol and higher acidity. As tastes swing away from the fruit bomb end of the spectrum, people are going to find a lot of pleasure in the wines from the North Fork."
And that, my friends, is good for all of us.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006
Marriage and civil rights
Marriage has no place in the United States Constitution. That document, the foundation of our democracy, has existed for 217 years with nary a mention of this venerable, centuries-old institution. And we have to keep it that way.
There's no doubt that the traditional institution of marriage is in trouble. What was once viewed as a lifetime bond between a man and a woman — a bond some viewed as ordained, even preordained, by God — has become something of a transient social arrangement. Half of all marriages end in divorce. This has far-ranging negative implications for our society — and our economy. But what's ailing marriage isn't about to be cured by a constitutional amendment banning some people who want to get married from being able to do so.
Yet that's precisely the reason why the president says we should amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage — to "protect" the institution of marriage. What malarkey. But what did we expect him to say — that he's advocating the so-called marriage amendment to shore up his standing among right-wing religious fundamentalists? Not likely, even though that's obviously exactly what he's doing. It's infuriating — though not surprising — that the president would exploit this hot-button issue to make political hay, to try galvanize "the right" around this emotionally charged topic on the eve of congressional elections when control of the House will be at stake. The GOP needs the support of conservatives to hang onto the House; George has thrown the right a bone.
It's repulsive, really, to play with people's lives this way. It's especially revolting that the president chose this month, Gay Pride Month, to do it.
There are 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. The first 10, referred to as the Bill of Rights, were adopted and ratified almost immediately following the adoption of the constitution itself in 1789. The other 17 became the law of the land over the course of the next 200 years, with the most recent amendment (concerning setting the salaries of members of Congress) coming in 1992.
Generally, the constitutional amendments all deal with subjects like protecting individuals from government oppression, or with the structure and operation of government itself. Only once did politics corrupt the constitutional amendment process enough to steer it off course into the realm of attempting to legislate morality: in 1919 the 18th amendment was ratified, banning the manufacture, sale or transport of "intoxicating liquor." That was a dismal failure and is, to date, the only constitutional amendment that's been repealed. That ought to tell you something, Mr. President.
But the president doesn't really think his marriage amendment is going anywhere. He's just using the issue to rally supporters at a politically expedient moment. Fully aware of the torrent of emotion and hatred surrounding the issue of homosexuality among his right-wing "base" — heck, these are the people who protest military funerals shouting that God is punishing the U.S. for accepting gay people by allowing our soldiers to be killed — Mr. Bush has the brass to say he wants the nation to "conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger." Fat chance.
We've treated gay people shabbily. The battle has been long and hard to gain even some semblance of acceptance, social justice and equal rights under the law. People point to passages of Scripture to defend laws that discriminate against gays. People used to point to Scripture to defend slavery, too. In any case, Scripture has no place in our system of government. The founding fathers saw to that with the very first amendment to our constitution, prohibiting the establishment of religion.
For me, as for countless other people here on the North Fork — your family members, friends and neighbors — this is a very personal issue. And it's a civil rights issue, not a morality issue. There are so many rights and privileges that married people take for granted — from having the right to be at the bedside of the one you love at the hospital ICU, to sharing health benefits, to having an exemption for your partner on your income tax return. Never mind the whole host of civil rights that are not guaranteed to people just because they are gay, the question of marriage aside.
Socially, things have gotten easier for gay people. There is more acceptance, less bigotry. Now it's time for the law to catch up to the realities of modern life. It's not time to go backwards, as the president proposes. And it's certainly not time to embroil the country in a bitter, hate-filled and pointless debate. There are far too many other truly important issues — the debacle in Iraq, the faltering economy, the trade and budget deficits, to name a few — that we really should be focusing on as a nation. But maybe taking attention away from these other issues is the real motive behind the president's shameless pandering to his "conservative base," after all.
© 2006
There's no doubt that the traditional institution of marriage is in trouble. What was once viewed as a lifetime bond between a man and a woman — a bond some viewed as ordained, even preordained, by God — has become something of a transient social arrangement. Half of all marriages end in divorce. This has far-ranging negative implications for our society — and our economy. But what's ailing marriage isn't about to be cured by a constitutional amendment banning some people who want to get married from being able to do so.
Yet that's precisely the reason why the president says we should amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage — to "protect" the institution of marriage. What malarkey. But what did we expect him to say — that he's advocating the so-called marriage amendment to shore up his standing among right-wing religious fundamentalists? Not likely, even though that's obviously exactly what he's doing. It's infuriating — though not surprising — that the president would exploit this hot-button issue to make political hay, to try galvanize "the right" around this emotionally charged topic on the eve of congressional elections when control of the House will be at stake. The GOP needs the support of conservatives to hang onto the House; George has thrown the right a bone.
It's repulsive, really, to play with people's lives this way. It's especially revolting that the president chose this month, Gay Pride Month, to do it.
There are 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. The first 10, referred to as the Bill of Rights, were adopted and ratified almost immediately following the adoption of the constitution itself in 1789. The other 17 became the law of the land over the course of the next 200 years, with the most recent amendment (concerning setting the salaries of members of Congress) coming in 1992.
Generally, the constitutional amendments all deal with subjects like protecting individuals from government oppression, or with the structure and operation of government itself. Only once did politics corrupt the constitutional amendment process enough to steer it off course into the realm of attempting to legislate morality: in 1919 the 18th amendment was ratified, banning the manufacture, sale or transport of "intoxicating liquor." That was a dismal failure and is, to date, the only constitutional amendment that's been repealed. That ought to tell you something, Mr. President.
But the president doesn't really think his marriage amendment is going anywhere. He's just using the issue to rally supporters at a politically expedient moment. Fully aware of the torrent of emotion and hatred surrounding the issue of homosexuality among his right-wing "base" — heck, these are the people who protest military funerals shouting that God is punishing the U.S. for accepting gay people by allowing our soldiers to be killed — Mr. Bush has the brass to say he wants the nation to "conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger." Fat chance.
We've treated gay people shabbily. The battle has been long and hard to gain even some semblance of acceptance, social justice and equal rights under the law. People point to passages of Scripture to defend laws that discriminate against gays. People used to point to Scripture to defend slavery, too. In any case, Scripture has no place in our system of government. The founding fathers saw to that with the very first amendment to our constitution, prohibiting the establishment of religion.
For me, as for countless other people here on the North Fork — your family members, friends and neighbors — this is a very personal issue. And it's a civil rights issue, not a morality issue. There are so many rights and privileges that married people take for granted — from having the right to be at the bedside of the one you love at the hospital ICU, to sharing health benefits, to having an exemption for your partner on your income tax return. Never mind the whole host of civil rights that are not guaranteed to people just because they are gay, the question of marriage aside.
Socially, things have gotten easier for gay people. There is more acceptance, less bigotry. Now it's time for the law to catch up to the realities of modern life. It's not time to go backwards, as the president proposes. And it's certainly not time to embroil the country in a bitter, hate-filled and pointless debate. There are far too many other truly important issues — the debacle in Iraq, the faltering economy, the trade and budget deficits, to name a few — that we really should be focusing on as a nation. But maybe taking attention away from these other issues is the real motive behind the president's shameless pandering to his "conservative base," after all.
© 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
This is a first for my blog
Now that I'm writing op-ed columns on a regular basis for both The Suffolk Times and The News-Review, I suppose this is going to happen. I have two different columns I'd like to post this week. I'll post each of them separately below: "Fighting cancer one step at a time" and "Riverhead's budget vote failure." (Please scroll down to read — and comment!)
This was a grueling week at the papers — a grueling couple of weeks, actually. Last week was our Memorial Day issue. It's a big holiday issue, and that means lots of pages to fill and produce. We have an incredible crew at Times/Review (and that most definitely includes the folks at our "outposts" on Shelter Island and in Wading River). It was a herculean task, and they did it, did it well and did it gracefully — and more or less on time, too.
Then, following the big holiday editions, we have a three-day weekend, which in this business simply means you have one less day to get the papers out. You come back from the weekend and — bam — it's Tuesday. The community section has to go to press, and the bulk of the stories in the main section are filed and must be edited and proofed — not to mention ad production! This is what we call "a short week," i.e. cramming five days into four — 14-hour days become 18 hour days.
And in the middle of everything in the past two weeks, two different network servers had unrelated hard drive failures, putting just a teeny glitch into the production process. Thank God for mirror drives and tech people, who manage to keep it all running, somehow. Rubber bands?
One staff member has a great bumper sticker posted at his workstation: "Another deadline, another miracle."
So if you see any of us around town this weekend and we've got a glazed-over look on our faces, now you know why. We just need a little R&R and we'll be fine.
Actually, I'll be capping off this week with a one-day trip to Hershey Park, Penn. with the Riverhead Middle School 8th Grade class. As if I need any more roller-coaster rides! And somehow, a bunch of Suffolk Times staffers are going to find the energy to stay up all night tomorrow night for Southold's Relay for Life!
This was a grueling week at the papers — a grueling couple of weeks, actually. Last week was our Memorial Day issue. It's a big holiday issue, and that means lots of pages to fill and produce. We have an incredible crew at Times/Review (and that most definitely includes the folks at our "outposts" on Shelter Island and in Wading River). It was a herculean task, and they did it, did it well and did it gracefully — and more or less on time, too.
Then, following the big holiday editions, we have a three-day weekend, which in this business simply means you have one less day to get the papers out. You come back from the weekend and — bam — it's Tuesday. The community section has to go to press, and the bulk of the stories in the main section are filed and must be edited and proofed — not to mention ad production! This is what we call "a short week," i.e. cramming five days into four — 14-hour days become 18 hour days.
And in the middle of everything in the past two weeks, two different network servers had unrelated hard drive failures, putting just a teeny glitch into the production process. Thank God for mirror drives and tech people, who manage to keep it all running, somehow. Rubber bands?
One staff member has a great bumper sticker posted at his workstation: "Another deadline, another miracle."
So if you see any of us around town this weekend and we've got a glazed-over look on our faces, now you know why. We just need a little R&R and we'll be fine.
Actually, I'll be capping off this week with a one-day trip to Hershey Park, Penn. with the Riverhead Middle School 8th Grade class. As if I need any more roller-coaster rides! And somehow, a bunch of Suffolk Times staffers are going to find the energy to stay up all night tomorrow night for Southold's Relay for Life!
Fighting cancer one step at a time
One in three. Those are my odds of developing invasive cancer at some point during my lifetime. Men are a bit worse off. Their odds are one in two. 50-50. At age 48, I have about a one in 11 chance of developing invasive cancer before I reach my 60th birthday.
Kind of helps you put in perspective those one in three gazillion odds of winning Lotto, doesn’t it?
These sobering statistics are from an American Cancer Society publication, “Cancer Facts & Figures: 2006,” I don’t know about you, but I really had no idea that the odds were that high. I should have.
All I need to do is look around at my own family and circle of friends. My mother, both of my grandmothers and two uncles have died of cancer. The number of friends and acquaintances who’ve been diagnosed blows my mind whenever I stop to think of it.
You can relate, I’m sure. Statistically, Southold should see 103 new cancer cases in 2006, and 42 Southolders will die of cancer this year. Of the 22,000 people or so who call Southold home, more than 9,100 will develop cancer at some point, and 4,640 will eventually die of the disease. With odds like those, there isn’t anyone whose life hasn’t been touched in some way by this disease.
That will be nowhere more evident than at Jean Cochrane Park tomorrow night, where hundreds of people will gather to take a stand — or, more accurately, a walk — against cancer, in Southold’s first Relay for Life.
“It’s about communities taking up the fight against cancer ... Relay brings communities together to make a difference,” says an American Cancer Society’s brochure about Relay for Life. Funds raised by Relay participants support American Cancer Society research efforts and programs that support and educate people battling the disease.
Relay is a fun overnight event, a giant community camp-out with barbecues, music, contests and, of course, plenty of walking. Participants form teams and raise money in all kinds of ways, ranging from individual solicitation to car washes to some very odd and creative efforts — like populating a front lawn with cardboard gnomes under cover of darkness and making the homeowner pay to get the gnomes removed. Each team has to try to keep one team member on the track all night long. (This is one time when being the parent of teenagers, who love to stay up all night, is actually a convenience.)
Most Relay team members will have a real personal reason for being there because — well, who doesn’t? Some will be cancer survivors themselves, and they will proudly wear their purple survivor T-shirts and take the track for the first lap of the evening, known as the survivor lap. There can be no doubt that a cancer diagnosis changes your whole life, from the way you spend your time to the way you look at the world. One survivor friend of mine told me, “I don’t have any patience or tolerance for superficial BS any more.” A face-to-face with one’s own mortality tends to have that effect on people.
Increasingly, thanks to improved screening, earlier detection and innovative new treatments, there are people more around who’ve had that confrontation and lived to talk about it. Cancer death are going down; survival rates are increasing.
The Suffolk Times will have a team on the track tomorrow night. If you’re not on a team yourself, come down and cheer our team — and all the other Relay teams — on. Don’t miss the lighting of the luminaria as night falls. Candles placed inside white paper bags around the track are lit to honor our survivors and remember loved ones lost to cancer. It’s a moving sight you won’t soon forget.
Kind of helps you put in perspective those one in three gazillion odds of winning Lotto, doesn’t it?
These sobering statistics are from an American Cancer Society publication, “Cancer Facts & Figures: 2006,” I don’t know about you, but I really had no idea that the odds were that high. I should have.
All I need to do is look around at my own family and circle of friends. My mother, both of my grandmothers and two uncles have died of cancer. The number of friends and acquaintances who’ve been diagnosed blows my mind whenever I stop to think of it.
You can relate, I’m sure. Statistically, Southold should see 103 new cancer cases in 2006, and 42 Southolders will die of cancer this year. Of the 22,000 people or so who call Southold home, more than 9,100 will develop cancer at some point, and 4,640 will eventually die of the disease. With odds like those, there isn’t anyone whose life hasn’t been touched in some way by this disease.
That will be nowhere more evident than at Jean Cochrane Park tomorrow night, where hundreds of people will gather to take a stand — or, more accurately, a walk — against cancer, in Southold’s first Relay for Life.
“It’s about communities taking up the fight against cancer ... Relay brings communities together to make a difference,” says an American Cancer Society’s brochure about Relay for Life. Funds raised by Relay participants support American Cancer Society research efforts and programs that support and educate people battling the disease.
Relay is a fun overnight event, a giant community camp-out with barbecues, music, contests and, of course, plenty of walking. Participants form teams and raise money in all kinds of ways, ranging from individual solicitation to car washes to some very odd and creative efforts — like populating a front lawn with cardboard gnomes under cover of darkness and making the homeowner pay to get the gnomes removed. Each team has to try to keep one team member on the track all night long. (This is one time when being the parent of teenagers, who love to stay up all night, is actually a convenience.)
Most Relay team members will have a real personal reason for being there because — well, who doesn’t? Some will be cancer survivors themselves, and they will proudly wear their purple survivor T-shirts and take the track for the first lap of the evening, known as the survivor lap. There can be no doubt that a cancer diagnosis changes your whole life, from the way you spend your time to the way you look at the world. One survivor friend of mine told me, “I don’t have any patience or tolerance for superficial BS any more.” A face-to-face with one’s own mortality tends to have that effect on people.
Increasingly, thanks to improved screening, earlier detection and innovative new treatments, there are people more around who’ve had that confrontation and lived to talk about it. Cancer death are going down; survival rates are increasing.
The Suffolk Times will have a team on the track tomorrow night. If you’re not on a team yourself, come down and cheer our team — and all the other Relay teams — on. Don’t miss the lighting of the luminaria as night falls. Candles placed inside white paper bags around the track are lit to honor our survivors and remember loved ones lost to cancer. It’s a moving sight you won’t soon forget.
Riverhead's budget vote failure
Did the Riverhead school budget fail because voters don’t trust the school board or the administration? Some people, including the teachers union, are banging this drum. I think it’s both oversimplification and, quite frankly, spin.
We seem to get a pretty consistent “no” vote on Riverhead school budgets, in the 1,400 to 1,700 vote range, according to vote results for the past six years. The one exception during this period was the year 2004, when the proposed budget represented a 12.99% spending increase over the previous year; the budget failed with a whopping 2,255 “no” votes.
This year, there were 1,667 “no” votes. That’s right in line with the number of “no” votes in each election in the preceding five years.
The difference this year was the number of “yes” votes. This year, there were 1,576 “yes” votes. When the budget passes, we see around 2,000 “yes” votes.
This year’s vote had the lowest total voter turnout over the past six years. And the low turnout was among the “yes” voters.
So I don’t think the budget defeat represents a vote of no confidence for the school board or the district administration, the way some people spin it to serve their own agendas.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn looking at these numbers, it’s that the parents of school age children didn’t bother to turn out to vote (as they typically do) “yes” on the school budget this year. Maybe they were busy doing other things or maybe they figured with a 2% tax rate hike, the budget simply couldn’t fail.
I looked at the voting results from 2001 through this year — votes, proposed budget amounts, percentage increases and total voter turnout. One thing that hits you over the head when you look at these numbers is the cumulative spending increase over the past five years.
The district budget increased from $65.2 million in 2001 to $93.3 million in 2006, an average increase of about 8% per year. That’s almost $30 million, and that’s a heck of a lot of money. The question is: Why? What does that $30 million represent?
Another drum people are banging is that we have exorbitant administrative costs in our district. What percentage of that $30 million is attributable to increased administrative expenses?
And what percentage of that $30 million is attributable to increased expenses for salaries and benefits for teachers and staff? Public employee collective bargaining agreements have built-in cost of living increases and “step” adjustments. Teachers move up in steps and earn higher wages by earning credits toward advanced degrees. And then there’s health insurance. Health insurance costs have increased astronomically for all of us. Public sector employees, including teachers, have a better deal than most of the rest of us when it comes to health insurance coverage. Government employers pays a higher percentage of an employee’s health insurance premium than most private sector employers. The school district picks up 85% of the tab for active teachers and 50% of the premium for retired teachers, according to the district superintendent. The teachers union seeks to increase the percentage paid by the district for retired teachers’ health insurance. That’s the heart of the current contract dispute between the district and its teachers. But the private sector is trending in the opposite direction. Most companies have decreased or eliminated health benefits for retirees.
Another major hit for district taxpayers has been pension costs. Because the stock market tanked, investments held by the state pension fund have shriveled. Local governments, including the school district, have had to make huge, budget-busting contributions to the pension fund to make up the difference — hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the private sector, pensions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Private sector workers today are lucky if their employers provide matching contributions to their 401k plans.
And then, of course, there are the various state and federal mandates that come with price tags both big and small, but without state and federal funding to pay for them. Not to mention the higher proportional costs of educating special needs and limited English proficiency students, both of which Riverhead has in significant numbers.
To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirkson: A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
The bottom line is that the bottom line isn’t looking very good for many district residents. People genuinely want to provide a sound education for our community’s children, but they want assurances that costs are kept in check — and they want to see results. There may be 1,600 people who turn out to vote “no” every year no matter what. But the rest of us need to believe that every dollar being spent is being spent wisely and that the education our kids are getting is worth every penny of our hard-earned tax dollars. That will get the “yes” voters out to the polls.
We seem to get a pretty consistent “no” vote on Riverhead school budgets, in the 1,400 to 1,700 vote range, according to vote results for the past six years. The one exception during this period was the year 2004, when the proposed budget represented a 12.99% spending increase over the previous year; the budget failed with a whopping 2,255 “no” votes.
This year, there were 1,667 “no” votes. That’s right in line with the number of “no” votes in each election in the preceding five years.
The difference this year was the number of “yes” votes. This year, there were 1,576 “yes” votes. When the budget passes, we see around 2,000 “yes” votes.
This year’s vote had the lowest total voter turnout over the past six years. And the low turnout was among the “yes” voters.
So I don’t think the budget defeat represents a vote of no confidence for the school board or the district administration, the way some people spin it to serve their own agendas.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn looking at these numbers, it’s that the parents of school age children didn’t bother to turn out to vote (as they typically do) “yes” on the school budget this year. Maybe they were busy doing other things or maybe they figured with a 2% tax rate hike, the budget simply couldn’t fail.
I looked at the voting results from 2001 through this year — votes, proposed budget amounts, percentage increases and total voter turnout. One thing that hits you over the head when you look at these numbers is the cumulative spending increase over the past five years.
The district budget increased from $65.2 million in 2001 to $93.3 million in 2006, an average increase of about 8% per year. That’s almost $30 million, and that’s a heck of a lot of money. The question is: Why? What does that $30 million represent?
Another drum people are banging is that we have exorbitant administrative costs in our district. What percentage of that $30 million is attributable to increased administrative expenses?
And what percentage of that $30 million is attributable to increased expenses for salaries and benefits for teachers and staff? Public employee collective bargaining agreements have built-in cost of living increases and “step” adjustments. Teachers move up in steps and earn higher wages by earning credits toward advanced degrees. And then there’s health insurance. Health insurance costs have increased astronomically for all of us. Public sector employees, including teachers, have a better deal than most of the rest of us when it comes to health insurance coverage. Government employers pays a higher percentage of an employee’s health insurance premium than most private sector employers. The school district picks up 85% of the tab for active teachers and 50% of the premium for retired teachers, according to the district superintendent. The teachers union seeks to increase the percentage paid by the district for retired teachers’ health insurance. That’s the heart of the current contract dispute between the district and its teachers. But the private sector is trending in the opposite direction. Most companies have decreased or eliminated health benefits for retirees.
Another major hit for district taxpayers has been pension costs. Because the stock market tanked, investments held by the state pension fund have shriveled. Local governments, including the school district, have had to make huge, budget-busting contributions to the pension fund to make up the difference — hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the private sector, pensions are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Private sector workers today are lucky if their employers provide matching contributions to their 401k plans.
And then, of course, there are the various state and federal mandates that come with price tags both big and small, but without state and federal funding to pay for them. Not to mention the higher proportional costs of educating special needs and limited English proficiency students, both of which Riverhead has in significant numbers.
To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirkson: A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
The bottom line is that the bottom line isn’t looking very good for many district residents. People genuinely want to provide a sound education for our community’s children, but they want assurances that costs are kept in check — and they want to see results. There may be 1,600 people who turn out to vote “no” every year no matter what. But the rest of us need to believe that every dollar being spent is being spent wisely and that the education our kids are getting is worth every penny of our hard-earned tax dollars. That will get the “yes” voters out to the polls.
Friday, May 26, 2006
IS THERE REALLY A MESSAGE IN THE SCHOOL BUDGET FAILURE?
Did the Riverhead school budget fail because voters don’t trust the school board or the administration? Some people (like Molly Roach and teachers union advocates) are banging this drum. I think it’s both oversimplification and, quite frankly, spin.
We seem to get a pretty consistent “no” vote on Riverhead school budgets, in the 1400 to 1700 vote range, according to vote results for the past 6 years. The one exception during this period was the year 2004, when the budget failed with a whopping 2255 “no” votes. In 2001, the proposed budget represented a 12.99% spending increase over the previous year.
This year, there were 1667 “no” votes. That’s right in line with the number of “no” votes in each election in the preceding 5 years.
The difference this year was the number of “yes” votes. This year, there were 1576 “yes” votes. When the budget passes, we see around 2000 “yes” votes.
This year’s vote had the lowest total voter turnout over the past 6 years. And the low turnout was among the “yes” voters.
So I don’t think the budget defeat represents a vote of no confidence for the school board or the district administration, the way some people spin it to serve their own agendas.
I don’t think it even represents any loud “enough is enough” statement on property taxes. The tax rate increase was only 2%.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn here it’s that the parents of school age children didn’t bother to turn out to vote (as they typically do) “yes” on the school budget this year. Maybe they were busy doing other things or maybe they figured with a 2% tax rate hike, it simply couldn’t fail.
I’ve compiled the voting results from 2001 through this year, showing votes, proposed budget amounts, percentage increases and total voter turnout.
Looking at these numbers, I have a few questions.
What’s the total number of registered voters in the Riverhead Central School District (registered to vote with the county board of elections)? Our voter turnout in these elections is usually in the 3000-4000 range. What percentage of eligible voters does this represent?
The budget increased from $65.2 million in 2001 to $93.3 million in 2006. That’s just about $30 million. What does that $30 million represent? Another drum people are banging is that we have exorbitant administrative costs in our district. What percentage of that $30 million is attributable to increased administrative expenses? What percentage is attributable to increased salaries and benefits for teachers and staff? What IS it attributable to? I’d like to see an analysis of that and I’m sure other parents and taxpayers would as well.
Here are the numbers:
2006 FAILED 1,667 to 1,576. $93,352,740, 6.5% spending increase; voter turnout: 3243
2005 PASSED 1,994 to 1,483. $87.6 million, 6.4% spending increase; voter turnout:
3477
2004 FAILED 1975 to 2255. $83,901,512 , 12.99% spending increase; voter turnout: 4230
Revote : PASSED 2,864 to 2,153. $82,275,746, 10.8% spending increase; voter turnout: 5017
2003: PASSED 2397 to 1760. $74,253,460, 4.41% spending increase; voter turnout: 4157
2002: FAILED 1,741 to 1,635. $71,120,126, 9.91% spending increase; voter turnout: 3376
Revote: PASSED 1764 to 1568, $71,120,126, 9.91% spending increase; 3332
2001: PASSED 1,975 to 1,412, $65,209,167, 9.39% spending increase; Voter turnout: 3387
We seem to get a pretty consistent “no” vote on Riverhead school budgets, in the 1400 to 1700 vote range, according to vote results for the past 6 years. The one exception during this period was the year 2004, when the budget failed with a whopping 2255 “no” votes. In 2001, the proposed budget represented a 12.99% spending increase over the previous year.
This year, there were 1667 “no” votes. That’s right in line with the number of “no” votes in each election in the preceding 5 years.
The difference this year was the number of “yes” votes. This year, there were 1576 “yes” votes. When the budget passes, we see around 2000 “yes” votes.
This year’s vote had the lowest total voter turnout over the past 6 years. And the low turnout was among the “yes” voters.
So I don’t think the budget defeat represents a vote of no confidence for the school board or the district administration, the way some people spin it to serve their own agendas.
I don’t think it even represents any loud “enough is enough” statement on property taxes. The tax rate increase was only 2%.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn here it’s that the parents of school age children didn’t bother to turn out to vote (as they typically do) “yes” on the school budget this year. Maybe they were busy doing other things or maybe they figured with a 2% tax rate hike, it simply couldn’t fail.
I’ve compiled the voting results from 2001 through this year, showing votes, proposed budget amounts, percentage increases and total voter turnout.
Looking at these numbers, I have a few questions.
What’s the total number of registered voters in the Riverhead Central School District (registered to vote with the county board of elections)? Our voter turnout in these elections is usually in the 3000-4000 range. What percentage of eligible voters does this represent?
The budget increased from $65.2 million in 2001 to $93.3 million in 2006. That’s just about $30 million. What does that $30 million represent? Another drum people are banging is that we have exorbitant administrative costs in our district. What percentage of that $30 million is attributable to increased administrative expenses? What percentage is attributable to increased salaries and benefits for teachers and staff? What IS it attributable to? I’d like to see an analysis of that and I’m sure other parents and taxpayers would as well.
Here are the numbers:
2006 FAILED 1,667 to 1,576. $93,352,740, 6.5% spending increase; voter turnout: 3243
2005 PASSED 1,994 to 1,483. $87.6 million, 6.4% spending increase; voter turnout:
3477
2004 FAILED 1975 to 2255. $83,901,512 , 12.99% spending increase; voter turnout: 4230
Revote : PASSED 2,864 to 2,153. $82,275,746, 10.8% spending increase; voter turnout: 5017
2003: PASSED 2397 to 1760. $74,253,460, 4.41% spending increase; voter turnout: 4157
2002: FAILED 1,741 to 1,635. $71,120,126, 9.91% spending increase; voter turnout: 3376
Revote: PASSED 1764 to 1568, $71,120,126, 9.91% spending increase; 3332
2001: PASSED 1,975 to 1,412, $65,209,167, 9.39% spending increase; Voter turnout: 3387
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Back to blogging
I'm going to start blogging again. I know that sounds strange since this is, after all, my blog and I've been posting to it since last year. But for several months now, I've only been posting my weekly columns that are published in the print editions of Times/Review papers. That's not blogging.
A blog is supposed to me more spontaneous, more "real time," and more interactive than what this has been.
It certainly was all of those things last fall. But in the heat of the election season, it turned into a forum where people posting things without regard for the truth to further their own agendas. No matter what I blogged about, the comments posted were always all about the election. Some were really mean and nasty, besides being untrue. I felt like my blog got hijacked and I grew disgusted, eventually shutting it down altogether until after the election. Once that insanity was behind us, I started posting my weekly columns here. And never got back to what this type of publishing is supposed to be all about.
I want to pursue this because this type of interactive online publishing is part of the future of journalism. I'm looking toward a day in the not-too-distant future when Times/Review has a website that hosts a number of blogs by citizen journalists.
Anyway... The thing on my mind this morning is our school budget crisis. Districts on the North Fork all passed their budgets. Riverhead and a number of districts in Southampton town failed theirs. Something like 6 of the 11 budgets that failed Tuesday were within Southampton, which just completed a town-wide tax reval that has a lot of taxpayers angry. That may have factored in the defeat of Riverhead's budget -- by a mere 91 votes. We can't tell for sure because school votes are not taken by election district, so we don't know if "no" votes are concentrated in any one location.
It's disgraceful that we couldn't pass a budget calling for a 2% tax rate increase. The contingency (aka austerity) budget tax rate increase is 1.5%. The voters of our district wouldn't go for a half-percent more?! Shame on us! How are we ever going to approve a bond to build the new classroom space we so desperately need if we can't even get approval of a bare bones budget like this one?
The real issue is, we're doing this all wrong. School budgets shouldn't be funded by property taxes to the extent that they are on Long Island. We are getting screwed by the state. And that's the point I tried to make in my column this week. (See last post, below.) Fundamental change is needed. We can't rely on our state representatives to bring that kind of change about. (Obviously.) So what can we do? We can vote them out of office. But that's a real long-shot. Incumbents get reelected. They are too damned entrenched. I plan to research whether there's any other recourse, perhaps even a movement to amend the state constitution.
Anybody got any ideas?
A blog is supposed to me more spontaneous, more "real time," and more interactive than what this has been.
It certainly was all of those things last fall. But in the heat of the election season, it turned into a forum where people posting things without regard for the truth to further their own agendas. No matter what I blogged about, the comments posted were always all about the election. Some were really mean and nasty, besides being untrue. I felt like my blog got hijacked and I grew disgusted, eventually shutting it down altogether until after the election. Once that insanity was behind us, I started posting my weekly columns here. And never got back to what this type of publishing is supposed to be all about.
I want to pursue this because this type of interactive online publishing is part of the future of journalism. I'm looking toward a day in the not-too-distant future when Times/Review has a website that hosts a number of blogs by citizen journalists.
Anyway... The thing on my mind this morning is our school budget crisis. Districts on the North Fork all passed their budgets. Riverhead and a number of districts in Southampton town failed theirs. Something like 6 of the 11 budgets that failed Tuesday were within Southampton, which just completed a town-wide tax reval that has a lot of taxpayers angry. That may have factored in the defeat of Riverhead's budget -- by a mere 91 votes. We can't tell for sure because school votes are not taken by election district, so we don't know if "no" votes are concentrated in any one location.
It's disgraceful that we couldn't pass a budget calling for a 2% tax rate increase. The contingency (aka austerity) budget tax rate increase is 1.5%. The voters of our district wouldn't go for a half-percent more?! Shame on us! How are we ever going to approve a bond to build the new classroom space we so desperately need if we can't even get approval of a bare bones budget like this one?
The real issue is, we're doing this all wrong. School budgets shouldn't be funded by property taxes to the extent that they are on Long Island. We are getting screwed by the state. And that's the point I tried to make in my column this week. (See last post, below.) Fundamental change is needed. We can't rely on our state representatives to bring that kind of change about. (Obviously.) So what can we do? We can vote them out of office. But that's a real long-shot. Incumbents get reelected. They are too damned entrenched. I plan to research whether there's any other recourse, perhaps even a movement to amend the state constitution.
Anybody got any ideas?
Punish Albany, not our children
“What if the budget gets voted down again, Mom?” That was the question on my 14-year-old daughter’s mind yesterday morning. I explained the potential consequences — the loss of sports and other extracurricular activities.
“Well that sucks,” observed her 13-year-old sister.
This time I didn’t chastise my daughter for using crude language. I simply agreed. It does. “Will that mean no choir? No Blue Masques?” they demanded in unison. I couldn’t say. Participating in the show choir has been one of the highlights of their middle school years. (The show choir even got to perform the national anthem to open the Ducks game last Friday night, which was way cool — for the choir and the rest of the Riverhead contingent huddled together against the drizzle in Citibank Park that evening.) And I can hardly describe their anticipation of the opportunity to get involved in the Blue Masques next year in high school.
My kids wore glum looks on their faces as they went off to school yesterday. I felt the same, maybe worse.
Every year, it’s the same drill. We fret and fight over school budgets, while our kids are stuck in the middle, suffering the consequences of political and economic situations they have zero control over. Every year, the kids are the hostages, the victims of mistakes committed by us grown-ups.
Shame on us! Shame on us for making kids pay the cost of our poor planning, our political agendas and our apathy. It’s astonishing that, even with the infusion of $1.3 million in state payments in lieu of taxes this year on state-owned land that’s otherwise off our tax rolls, keeping our school tax rate increase at just two percent, Riverhead still said no. But a two percent increase on taxes that already have a lot of people stretched to the limit is still, obviously, too much.
Our school property taxes are too high not because our school district spends too much. In fact, the per-pupil cost of education is about the same on Long Island as in districts upstate, when regional cost differences (such as the highest electric rates in the nation) are factored in.
School property tax bills upstate are drastically lower than our tax bills here because school districts upstate get a greater portion of their budgets covered by state aid than we do, so the amount they have to raise by way of property taxes is smaller. Here, property tax payers do the heavy lifting.
On Long Island, we spend an average of 5.1% of our gross household income to pay school property taxes. Other New Yorkers spend less than 2.3% of their gross household income on school property taxes. That’s more than double — 66%, in fact.
Let me put this another way: The income and sales taxes you pay to New York state are being spent by the state to underwrite public education in other parts of the state.
That’s mostly because more than 30 years ago, legislators decided on “regional shares” to divvy up the state aid pie. Long Island got 13%, and that’s where it’s remained, frozen at 13%. The island’s population has grown a bit in the last three decades, wouldn’t you say? But our piece of the pie hasn’t grown with it.
And because of the dysfunctional manner in which our state legislature does business, our local representatives have been impotent to do anything to correct this fundamental unfairness.
Senator LaValle talks about how he had the Enhanced STAR program put into place to give us relief here on Long Island. Do you feel relieved? Not enough to vote “yes.” This year, he came through with that PILOT money, and I give him credit for that. But these are Band-Aids treatments for a terminally ill patient.
I like Ken LaValle. He’s a decent guy who’s done a lot of good things for the 1st senate district. And because Albany is Albany, it’s probably true that no one else could have done anything different or better. But Senator LaValle, along with our as yet unproven new assemblyman, Marc Alessi, and every one of the incumbents in the Long Island delegation need to get the message loud and clear. You have to right this wrong now, or you’re outta here.
The way New York state funds public education is nuts. And very unfair — to the point of being unconstitutional. That’s not just my opinion but the opinion of the highest court in the state.
Our system is broken beyond repair, folks — it needs a complete overhaul. The only way that’s going to happen is if we — you and I — make it happen. Our legislature isn’t going to do it unless we pressure them to the extreme. We’ve got to quit punishing our kids and beating up on our teachers and school administrators and train our sights instead on the real source of our pain: Albany.
Can you think of a good reason why you should pay more than twice as much of your gross annual income for school property taxes than a family in Ulster County? I sure can’t. I don’t know about you, but that makes me mad. And the look on my kids’ faces yesterday makes me even madder. Enough with the hand-wringing and whining. It’s time for action.
“Well that sucks,” observed her 13-year-old sister.
This time I didn’t chastise my daughter for using crude language. I simply agreed. It does. “Will that mean no choir? No Blue Masques?” they demanded in unison. I couldn’t say. Participating in the show choir has been one of the highlights of their middle school years. (The show choir even got to perform the national anthem to open the Ducks game last Friday night, which was way cool — for the choir and the rest of the Riverhead contingent huddled together against the drizzle in Citibank Park that evening.) And I can hardly describe their anticipation of the opportunity to get involved in the Blue Masques next year in high school.
My kids wore glum looks on their faces as they went off to school yesterday. I felt the same, maybe worse.
Every year, it’s the same drill. We fret and fight over school budgets, while our kids are stuck in the middle, suffering the consequences of political and economic situations they have zero control over. Every year, the kids are the hostages, the victims of mistakes committed by us grown-ups.
Shame on us! Shame on us for making kids pay the cost of our poor planning, our political agendas and our apathy. It’s astonishing that, even with the infusion of $1.3 million in state payments in lieu of taxes this year on state-owned land that’s otherwise off our tax rolls, keeping our school tax rate increase at just two percent, Riverhead still said no. But a two percent increase on taxes that already have a lot of people stretched to the limit is still, obviously, too much.
Our school property taxes are too high not because our school district spends too much. In fact, the per-pupil cost of education is about the same on Long Island as in districts upstate, when regional cost differences (such as the highest electric rates in the nation) are factored in.
School property tax bills upstate are drastically lower than our tax bills here because school districts upstate get a greater portion of their budgets covered by state aid than we do, so the amount they have to raise by way of property taxes is smaller. Here, property tax payers do the heavy lifting.
On Long Island, we spend an average of 5.1% of our gross household income to pay school property taxes. Other New Yorkers spend less than 2.3% of their gross household income on school property taxes. That’s more than double — 66%, in fact.
Let me put this another way: The income and sales taxes you pay to New York state are being spent by the state to underwrite public education in other parts of the state.
That’s mostly because more than 30 years ago, legislators decided on “regional shares” to divvy up the state aid pie. Long Island got 13%, and that’s where it’s remained, frozen at 13%. The island’s population has grown a bit in the last three decades, wouldn’t you say? But our piece of the pie hasn’t grown with it.
And because of the dysfunctional manner in which our state legislature does business, our local representatives have been impotent to do anything to correct this fundamental unfairness.
Senator LaValle talks about how he had the Enhanced STAR program put into place to give us relief here on Long Island. Do you feel relieved? Not enough to vote “yes.” This year, he came through with that PILOT money, and I give him credit for that. But these are Band-Aids treatments for a terminally ill patient.
I like Ken LaValle. He’s a decent guy who’s done a lot of good things for the 1st senate district. And because Albany is Albany, it’s probably true that no one else could have done anything different or better. But Senator LaValle, along with our as yet unproven new assemblyman, Marc Alessi, and every one of the incumbents in the Long Island delegation need to get the message loud and clear. You have to right this wrong now, or you’re outta here.
The way New York state funds public education is nuts. And very unfair — to the point of being unconstitutional. That’s not just my opinion but the opinion of the highest court in the state.
Our system is broken beyond repair, folks — it needs a complete overhaul. The only way that’s going to happen is if we — you and I — make it happen. Our legislature isn’t going to do it unless we pressure them to the extreme. We’ve got to quit punishing our kids and beating up on our teachers and school administrators and train our sights instead on the real source of our pain: Albany.
Can you think of a good reason why you should pay more than twice as much of your gross annual income for school property taxes than a family in Ulster County? I sure can’t. I don’t know about you, but that makes me mad. And the look on my kids’ faces yesterday makes me even madder. Enough with the hand-wringing and whining. It’s time for action.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Rule 1: Consider the source
We received an anonymous letter at the newspaper this week, accusing us of being “soft” on our local school districts. We only print the good news about our schools, wrote the author of this neatly typed missive alleging our malfeasance.
I can imagine dozens of school board members and district administrators across the Times/Review Newspaper coverage area, stretching from Orient Point on the east to Mount Sinai on the west, laughing out loud as they read these words. That’s because they have a distinctly different opinion of our coverage, and I know it because I’ve heard about it. Repeatedly. We go out of our way to print the negative about our schools, district officials have complained. If something bad happens, we’re on it. Good stuff? We hardly notice.
To some people, we’re sugar-coating news about our schools. We’re in bed with the establishment, helping them to pick the pockets of the taxpayers by making sure that our school districts are portrayed in the best possible light. To some inside the establishment, we’re in cahoots with the disgruntled troublemakers of the world on most issues, and being members of the fourth estate, we of course thrive on and seek out the negative.
And here we are, in the middle, viewed with suspicion by the two warring sides.
Amen and hallelujah — we must be doing something right. Everybody’s mad at us!
When I was just a few years out of law school, as a hearing officer at the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, a veteran lawyer at the agency coached me in negotiation skills. Hearing officers often had to broker settlements in complaints between consumers and businesses. “When both sides sign the agreement but walk away from the table unhappy,” he told me, “you know you’ve done a good job.” At the time, I thought this advice was completely bizarre. I was 27, idealistic and a bit naive. I wanted everyone to sign the agreement and walk away happy.
That lawyer’s words have come back to me many times over the years. And I heard his voice again on Monday as I contemplated the allegations in the letter. The advice takes on new meaning for me in the field of journalism. Important new meaning. Nobody we cover as journalists should ever feel too happy with us. Nobody should ever feel like we’re their best friends — or even that we’re their friends at all. In this business, friendship can be a dangerous thing. It can color your perspective, maybe even make you look the other way when you shouldn’t. Nobody should ever be so comfortable with you that they think they can influence or even control what ends up in print on the pages of your newspaper.
So when the establishment and the anti-establishment each think we’re carrying water for the other side, we know we’ve done our job right.
Now, what kind of person would want a job whose measure of success is the extent to which she is mistrusted and even reviled by her neighbors? That’s another story altogether, and probably best answered on a therapist’s couch.
To the author of that anonymous letter, I’d sure like the opportunity to answer each point you raised. I can’t do that here because we’re not in the business of printing — and thereby spreading — unsubstantiated rumors. With one exception, we’d heard each of the rumors you wrote about and did what responsible journalists do before they print anything: We checked them out. (We’re looking into the one we hadn’t heard before your letter came.) None of them panned out. One came close, but we couldn’t get anybody to go on the record with anything of substance, so we couldn’t report it.
That’s the difference between real journalism and some of the stuff masquerading as journalism on Internet message boards and weblogs today: checking, documenting, sourcing things on the record. We may not always get everything right, because we’re only human, but it’s not for lack of trying. We don’t print things we’ve heard without doing our level best to confirm their veracity. And we never, ever run to press with a story from an anonymous source. We’ll protect a the confidentiality of a source who can’t go on the record, but we need to know who our source is and understand the valid reason why he or she needs to remain unidentified before we’ll pursue a story. And except in the rarest of situations — I can’t even think of one right now — we won’t take it to print without confirming the story on the record with other people.
We’re held accountable for what we print, as we should be. That’s also why we don’t print anonymous letters to the editor. Accountability helps ensure truthfulness. If you really believe in what you’re saying, if it’s the truth, then you sign your name to it. To the author of that anonymous letter — you know who you are — I’d love to discuss the things you wrote. Give me a call.
I can imagine dozens of school board members and district administrators across the Times/Review Newspaper coverage area, stretching from Orient Point on the east to Mount Sinai on the west, laughing out loud as they read these words. That’s because they have a distinctly different opinion of our coverage, and I know it because I’ve heard about it. Repeatedly. We go out of our way to print the negative about our schools, district officials have complained. If something bad happens, we’re on it. Good stuff? We hardly notice.
To some people, we’re sugar-coating news about our schools. We’re in bed with the establishment, helping them to pick the pockets of the taxpayers by making sure that our school districts are portrayed in the best possible light. To some inside the establishment, we’re in cahoots with the disgruntled troublemakers of the world on most issues, and being members of the fourth estate, we of course thrive on and seek out the negative.
And here we are, in the middle, viewed with suspicion by the two warring sides.
Amen and hallelujah — we must be doing something right. Everybody’s mad at us!
When I was just a few years out of law school, as a hearing officer at the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, a veteran lawyer at the agency coached me in negotiation skills. Hearing officers often had to broker settlements in complaints between consumers and businesses. “When both sides sign the agreement but walk away from the table unhappy,” he told me, “you know you’ve done a good job.” At the time, I thought this advice was completely bizarre. I was 27, idealistic and a bit naive. I wanted everyone to sign the agreement and walk away happy.
That lawyer’s words have come back to me many times over the years. And I heard his voice again on Monday as I contemplated the allegations in the letter. The advice takes on new meaning for me in the field of journalism. Important new meaning. Nobody we cover as journalists should ever feel too happy with us. Nobody should ever feel like we’re their best friends — or even that we’re their friends at all. In this business, friendship can be a dangerous thing. It can color your perspective, maybe even make you look the other way when you shouldn’t. Nobody should ever be so comfortable with you that they think they can influence or even control what ends up in print on the pages of your newspaper.
So when the establishment and the anti-establishment each think we’re carrying water for the other side, we know we’ve done our job right.
Now, what kind of person would want a job whose measure of success is the extent to which she is mistrusted and even reviled by her neighbors? That’s another story altogether, and probably best answered on a therapist’s couch.
To the author of that anonymous letter, I’d sure like the opportunity to answer each point you raised. I can’t do that here because we’re not in the business of printing — and thereby spreading — unsubstantiated rumors. With one exception, we’d heard each of the rumors you wrote about and did what responsible journalists do before they print anything: We checked them out. (We’re looking into the one we hadn’t heard before your letter came.) None of them panned out. One came close, but we couldn’t get anybody to go on the record with anything of substance, so we couldn’t report it.
That’s the difference between real journalism and some of the stuff masquerading as journalism on Internet message boards and weblogs today: checking, documenting, sourcing things on the record. We may not always get everything right, because we’re only human, but it’s not for lack of trying. We don’t print things we’ve heard without doing our level best to confirm their veracity. And we never, ever run to press with a story from an anonymous source. We’ll protect a the confidentiality of a source who can’t go on the record, but we need to know who our source is and understand the valid reason why he or she needs to remain unidentified before we’ll pursue a story. And except in the rarest of situations — I can’t even think of one right now — we won’t take it to print without confirming the story on the record with other people.
We’re held accountable for what we print, as we should be. That’s also why we don’t print anonymous letters to the editor. Accountability helps ensure truthfulness. If you really believe in what you’re saying, if it’s the truth, then you sign your name to it. To the author of that anonymous letter — you know who you are — I’d love to discuss the things you wrote. Give me a call.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Letters, do we get letters
As the editor of a community newspaper, you get accused of a lot of things. That was certainly my experience as editor of The News-Review. I was always up to something, according to some readers. I figured my involvement in electoral politics years ago contributed to that perception — understandably, I guess. Some people assumed I played favorites because of it.
From time to time I found myself accused of things like not printing letters to the editor because I didn’t agree with what the letter writer had to say. Of course, if we did that kind of thing, these pages, usually bursting at the seams with letters from readers incensed about something, would often be pretty barren. And surely those letters calling me all kinds of names would never have seen the light of day.
But, no, we print them all — as long as they had a name, address and phone number attached, and as long as we can confirm that the name on the bottom of the letter belongs to a “real” person.
Usually, our letters pages are filled, and some weeks we even run out of room for all the letters we get. To my mind that’s cause for celebration. Industry experts tell us that a good measure of a community newspaper’s success is the health of its letters to the editor section. Lots of letters tell you that people are reading your newspaper, that its contents matter to them, and matter enough to inspire them to pick up a pen or sit at their computer and voice their own opinions. That’s an honor — even if the opinion they’re inspired to express is that the editor is an idiot.
One of the things that gave me pause about stepping into the editor’s role at The Suffolk Times was, in fact, managing its op-ed section. I knew it would be a challenge. The Suffolk Times almost always has more letters than we can fit on these pages. Many of the letter writers are regulars. Some even have their own followings. How would I know which letters to hold when we run out of room? Which letters to trim to make them more readable and to-the-point?
Southold, I knew, was different than Riverhead (I can almost hear that chorus of “amens” right now.) Its demographic combination of old-time Yankee and cosmopolitan second-home owner is hard to figure for this working-class kid from Brooklyn.
OK, so I was a tad intimidated by the task. Luckily, I’ve never been one to shrink from a challenge. And these first few weeks have provided plenty of challenges. For starters, there’s the sheer volume. It’s a huge task to read, edit and confirm all the letters.
Then there’s dealing with the length of some letters. Southold folks can be somewhat — er, shall we say — verbose, I’ve noticed. I had one letter this week that was 1,580 words long. I am loathe to make a hard word “limit” part of our letters policy; I’d rather play it by ear. But 1,580 words? That’s twice as long as most of the stories we print. I sent the author an e-mail asking him to trim his letter to something less than 500 words. As I write this, I haven’t heard back from him yet, but I know I will — and I’m bracing myself. He opened his dissertation by calling The Suffolk Times coverage of the Factory Avenue affordable housing proposal “inflammatory, one-sided, inaccurate and simply the writings of a reporter who is ill-informed.” He will probably think I want to cut his letter down because I didn’t like what he had to say. Of course I didn’t like what he had to say, and I don’t agree, but that’s quite beside the point.
Then there are the once-is-not-enough people. I’m not talking about the people who are our faithful correspondents each and every week, without fail. (How can anyone have so many opinions about everything?) I’m referring to the people who have so many opinions about everything they feel inspired to write several letters almost every week. Three, four, even five letters on different topics! This is a phenomenon I never saw in Riverhead, and I’m not sure what to do. I’ve informed these prolific writers that we have a “one-per-week” policy here, but it hasn’t changed anything. I don’t mind reading multiple letters from one reader every week, but after I edit and format a letter for printing, it’s a drag to have the reader call or e-mail to say, “Never mind that one, print this one instead.” And when that happens three times in one week, it makes for a very cranky editor.
Of course, there are moments of levity in this business and they help balance the trying times (like printing the wrong name at the end of a letter, which we did last week.) My favorite thus far: a letter to the editor accusing us of making somebody up.
“Now I realize there is no such man as John Copertino,” wrote a Southold man in an e-mail to me. “It is a fictional character made up by the editor of the Times/Review to generate controversy and more letters. I have to say to the editor of the Times/Review, you can’t fool us.”
Mr. Copertino is a real person of course. He came into the office this week to drop off another letter. And I have witnesses.
Keep those cards and letters coming. E-mail me at denise@timesreview.com, or post a comment on my blog: civiletti.blogspot.com
From time to time I found myself accused of things like not printing letters to the editor because I didn’t agree with what the letter writer had to say. Of course, if we did that kind of thing, these pages, usually bursting at the seams with letters from readers incensed about something, would often be pretty barren. And surely those letters calling me all kinds of names would never have seen the light of day.
But, no, we print them all — as long as they had a name, address and phone number attached, and as long as we can confirm that the name on the bottom of the letter belongs to a “real” person.
Usually, our letters pages are filled, and some weeks we even run out of room for all the letters we get. To my mind that’s cause for celebration. Industry experts tell us that a good measure of a community newspaper’s success is the health of its letters to the editor section. Lots of letters tell you that people are reading your newspaper, that its contents matter to them, and matter enough to inspire them to pick up a pen or sit at their computer and voice their own opinions. That’s an honor — even if the opinion they’re inspired to express is that the editor is an idiot.
One of the things that gave me pause about stepping into the editor’s role at The Suffolk Times was, in fact, managing its op-ed section. I knew it would be a challenge. The Suffolk Times almost always has more letters than we can fit on these pages. Many of the letter writers are regulars. Some even have their own followings. How would I know which letters to hold when we run out of room? Which letters to trim to make them more readable and to-the-point?
Southold, I knew, was different than Riverhead (I can almost hear that chorus of “amens” right now.) Its demographic combination of old-time Yankee and cosmopolitan second-home owner is hard to figure for this working-class kid from Brooklyn.
OK, so I was a tad intimidated by the task. Luckily, I’ve never been one to shrink from a challenge. And these first few weeks have provided plenty of challenges. For starters, there’s the sheer volume. It’s a huge task to read, edit and confirm all the letters.
Then there’s dealing with the length of some letters. Southold folks can be somewhat — er, shall we say — verbose, I’ve noticed. I had one letter this week that was 1,580 words long. I am loathe to make a hard word “limit” part of our letters policy; I’d rather play it by ear. But 1,580 words? That’s twice as long as most of the stories we print. I sent the author an e-mail asking him to trim his letter to something less than 500 words. As I write this, I haven’t heard back from him yet, but I know I will — and I’m bracing myself. He opened his dissertation by calling The Suffolk Times coverage of the Factory Avenue affordable housing proposal “inflammatory, one-sided, inaccurate and simply the writings of a reporter who is ill-informed.” He will probably think I want to cut his letter down because I didn’t like what he had to say. Of course I didn’t like what he had to say, and I don’t agree, but that’s quite beside the point.
Then there are the once-is-not-enough people. I’m not talking about the people who are our faithful correspondents each and every week, without fail. (How can anyone have so many opinions about everything?) I’m referring to the people who have so many opinions about everything they feel inspired to write several letters almost every week. Three, four, even five letters on different topics! This is a phenomenon I never saw in Riverhead, and I’m not sure what to do. I’ve informed these prolific writers that we have a “one-per-week” policy here, but it hasn’t changed anything. I don’t mind reading multiple letters from one reader every week, but after I edit and format a letter for printing, it’s a drag to have the reader call or e-mail to say, “Never mind that one, print this one instead.” And when that happens three times in one week, it makes for a very cranky editor.
Of course, there are moments of levity in this business and they help balance the trying times (like printing the wrong name at the end of a letter, which we did last week.) My favorite thus far: a letter to the editor accusing us of making somebody up.
“Now I realize there is no such man as John Copertino,” wrote a Southold man in an e-mail to me. “It is a fictional character made up by the editor of the Times/Review to generate controversy and more letters. I have to say to the editor of the Times/Review, you can’t fool us.”
Mr. Copertino is a real person of course. He came into the office this week to drop off another letter. And I have witnesses.
Keep those cards and letters coming. E-mail me at denise@timesreview.com, or post a comment on my blog: civiletti.blogspot.com
Thursday, April 20, 2006
A ferry good education
Although I became co-publisher of the company that publishes The Suffolk Times in July 2004, it wasn’t until recently that I began to really dig into the history of the Cross Sound Ferry controversy. One big reason: until January, I was also pulling duty as editor of another Times/Review paper, The News-Review, which covers Riverhead Town, where I live.
I had some rudimentary understanding of the issues involved, of course. And I couldn’t help being aware of the P.R. battle being waged by Cross Sound Ferry to paint the opposition as a small group of fanatical NIMBYs and the Town of Southold’s lawsuit as an attempt to put the ferry company out of business. It was unavoidable because this newspaper had been drawn into the fray, accused by the ferry company of siding with Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, a vocal opponent of ferry expansion and sometime litigant against both the town and the ferry company. That accusation grew out of the opinions of our former publisher, Troy Gustavson, an Orient resident, in his semimonthly op-ed column. In fact, this newspaper’s position on the ferry issue is completely consistent with every position it has ever taken on any environmental issue facing the North Fork: We have passionately advocated the preservation of the North Fork’s character and quality of life.
In the wake of editor Tim Kelly’s resignation last month, I now find myself charged with the responsibility for putting out this paper every Thursday. As such, a stranger in a strange land, I’m taking a very intensive “crash course” on Southold — a baptism by fire that of course includes the ferry controversy. I realize that no matter what I say, there are some who will prejudge me on this and perhaps other issues, just because I work for Times/Review. So be it. I’ve never been anyone’s stooge and, at age 48, I’m not going to start now.
My opinions on the subject of Cross Sound Ferry are, quite frankly, still being formed. As a lawyer (J.D., NYU, 1982), one of my first points of entry to this dispute was the file of court documents in the suit brought by the town last fall. I’m still digesting the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in the file. But it’s been an education.
As a former Riverhead Town councilwoman — elected in 1987, I served one four-year term — I know something about politics, government, zoning and dispute resolution. Reading through the five-inch-thick court file, I can’t help but wonder why this matter wasn’t resolved long ago.
It’s obvious the ferry company has a right to operate at a location that’s been in active use as a port since long before Southold had a zoning code. It’s equally obvious that the town has the right to regulate the site where the ferry company operates. And it’s also obvious that the increase in the ferry company’s business over the past decade or so — in part thanks to casino-bound vehicles and passengers — has created stress on the local road — albeit one under state jurisdiction — leading to Orient Point. Ferry traffic has many Southold residents seeing red, and they fear what the future holds if the ferry continues to add more vessels and more service between Orient and New London without restriction. Will that happen? If left to the free market, the odds are very good. At least one casino is undergoing a large expansion, and there are plans for a major theme park and a NASCAR race track in eastern Connecticut, both of which would undoubtedly bring more New England-bound vehicular traffic through the formerly quiet country byways of Southold Town.
This has all the makings of a classic land-use controversy, and the responsibility for solving it rests squarely with the Town Board. It’s rather incredible that the board has up until now taken very few proactive measures to bring this bitter dispute to a reasonable, if not happy, conclusion. It hasn’t yet undertaken any study of the traffic volume and patterns on State Route 25, and might not even be discussing doing so today had SCSR president Freddie Wachsberger not shamed board members into it at the last work session. The supervisor pointed out to me that lawsuits have a way of sucking the energy out of everyone. And the town’s been wrapped up in its lawsuit with the ferry company, no doubt. But that’s really no excuse for inaction; inaction is what got the town into this predicament to begin with.
For starters, the Town Board has to get a handle on the facts of the traffic situation as it exists at the peak of the season, and during the off-season, too. It needs to have a clear understanding of what it can and can’t do to regulate the company’s growth at the Orient Point terminal, and it should take the steps needed to put lawful regulations in place.
Cross Sound’s contention that the town can’t regulate its business doesn’t hold water; a municipality has the right to regulate all businesses operating within its borders. If the company’s parking needs are greater than its ability to accommodate its customers’ cars, it can’t simply expect to have the unlimited right to use the public right of way for its customer parking. Nor can it expect to keep annexing the surrounding residentially zoned land to its commercial site to meet its parking needs. At some point, it must recognize that it’s outgrown its present location, and should seek to establish another port.
This isn’t about the ferry company being “evil” or a “bad neighbor,” and it isn’t about a desire to put it out of business. It’s just common sense.
I had some rudimentary understanding of the issues involved, of course. And I couldn’t help being aware of the P.R. battle being waged by Cross Sound Ferry to paint the opposition as a small group of fanatical NIMBYs and the Town of Southold’s lawsuit as an attempt to put the ferry company out of business. It was unavoidable because this newspaper had been drawn into the fray, accused by the ferry company of siding with Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, a vocal opponent of ferry expansion and sometime litigant against both the town and the ferry company. That accusation grew out of the opinions of our former publisher, Troy Gustavson, an Orient resident, in his semimonthly op-ed column. In fact, this newspaper’s position on the ferry issue is completely consistent with every position it has ever taken on any environmental issue facing the North Fork: We have passionately advocated the preservation of the North Fork’s character and quality of life.
In the wake of editor Tim Kelly’s resignation last month, I now find myself charged with the responsibility for putting out this paper every Thursday. As such, a stranger in a strange land, I’m taking a very intensive “crash course” on Southold — a baptism by fire that of course includes the ferry controversy. I realize that no matter what I say, there are some who will prejudge me on this and perhaps other issues, just because I work for Times/Review. So be it. I’ve never been anyone’s stooge and, at age 48, I’m not going to start now.
My opinions on the subject of Cross Sound Ferry are, quite frankly, still being formed. As a lawyer (J.D., NYU, 1982), one of my first points of entry to this dispute was the file of court documents in the suit brought by the town last fall. I’m still digesting the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in the file. But it’s been an education.
As a former Riverhead Town councilwoman — elected in 1987, I served one four-year term — I know something about politics, government, zoning and dispute resolution. Reading through the five-inch-thick court file, I can’t help but wonder why this matter wasn’t resolved long ago.
It’s obvious the ferry company has a right to operate at a location that’s been in active use as a port since long before Southold had a zoning code. It’s equally obvious that the town has the right to regulate the site where the ferry company operates. And it’s also obvious that the increase in the ferry company’s business over the past decade or so — in part thanks to casino-bound vehicles and passengers — has created stress on the local road — albeit one under state jurisdiction — leading to Orient Point. Ferry traffic has many Southold residents seeing red, and they fear what the future holds if the ferry continues to add more vessels and more service between Orient and New London without restriction. Will that happen? If left to the free market, the odds are very good. At least one casino is undergoing a large expansion, and there are plans for a major theme park and a NASCAR race track in eastern Connecticut, both of which would undoubtedly bring more New England-bound vehicular traffic through the formerly quiet country byways of Southold Town.
This has all the makings of a classic land-use controversy, and the responsibility for solving it rests squarely with the Town Board. It’s rather incredible that the board has up until now taken very few proactive measures to bring this bitter dispute to a reasonable, if not happy, conclusion. It hasn’t yet undertaken any study of the traffic volume and patterns on State Route 25, and might not even be discussing doing so today had SCSR president Freddie Wachsberger not shamed board members into it at the last work session. The supervisor pointed out to me that lawsuits have a way of sucking the energy out of everyone. And the town’s been wrapped up in its lawsuit with the ferry company, no doubt. But that’s really no excuse for inaction; inaction is what got the town into this predicament to begin with.
For starters, the Town Board has to get a handle on the facts of the traffic situation as it exists at the peak of the season, and during the off-season, too. It needs to have a clear understanding of what it can and can’t do to regulate the company’s growth at the Orient Point terminal, and it should take the steps needed to put lawful regulations in place.
Cross Sound’s contention that the town can’t regulate its business doesn’t hold water; a municipality has the right to regulate all businesses operating within its borders. If the company’s parking needs are greater than its ability to accommodate its customers’ cars, it can’t simply expect to have the unlimited right to use the public right of way for its customer parking. Nor can it expect to keep annexing the surrounding residentially zoned land to its commercial site to meet its parking needs. At some point, it must recognize that it’s outgrown its present location, and should seek to establish another port.
This isn’t about the ferry company being “evil” or a “bad neighbor,” and it isn’t about a desire to put it out of business. It’s just common sense.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Who dreams this stuff up?
Have you ever tried to understand state aid to education? I mean, really try to understand how it works, how the dollars are allocated up in Albany?
I'm the first one to admit that I'm no math wiz — never was. When it comes to numbers, I'm downright challenged. Over the last several days, I've had the unenviable task of trying to make heads or tails out of the state education aid our local school districts can expect to receive under the budget plan approved by the state legislature last week.
About the only thing I can say with certainty is that I don't blame our local school superintendents one bit for saying they're not willing to draw any conclusions yet about the revenue that may — or may not — flow downstate from our capital.
Here's the list of state education aid categories from the "2006-07 State Aid Projections" published by the state education department: flex aid; supplemental ENA; limited English proficiency enrollment adjustment aid; full-day K conversion; tax limitation; BOCES & special services,; excess cost; building & building reorganization incentive; transportation; hardware & technology; software, library & textbook; universal prekindergarten; early grade class-size reduction; teacher support aid; and — my personal favorite — sound basic education aid.
In addition to these categories of aid, this year we have supplemental universal pre-K aid; additional universal prekindergarten aid; high tax aid and EXCEL, which stands for "expanding our children's education and learning."
Presumably each category comes with its own unique formula for distributing the state largesse, or why else would there be different categories?
What does it all mean? Fear not, the state education department publishes a cheat sheet to "explain" these categories and how aid under each is calculated. This little pearl contains statements such as the following:
"Flex aid is the sum of: (1) Tier 1 Flex Aid which is the sum of 2004-05 Comprehensive Operating, Extraordinary Needs, Educationally Related Support Services, Limited English Proficiency, Summer School and Maintenance and Repair Aids; (2) Tier 2 Flex Aid, which is Flex Selected TAPU multiplied by the sum of $6 and the result of $55 multiplied by the Geographic Cost of Education Index-based cost adjustment multiplied by the aid ratio (1.37 - 1.10* Flex CWR), maximum .90, minimum .05); and ..."
This only represents about one-third of the "explanation" of what Flex Aid is. I couldn't bear to copy any more. And remember, Flex Aid is just one component of the total state aid picture.
What sadistic mind (no doubt belonging to a government bureaucrat) dreams up formulas like these? Can anyone really explain them, including the state legislators who theoretically adopt them or the school officials who must live with them?
Or are they all, as I suspect, a smoke screen for what really goes on up in Albany during budget season: the leaders of the Assembly and Senate sit down with the governor and carve up the pie. All the wordy explanations, bordering on double talk, exist just to confuse the rest of us into thinking there is a method in their madness. But we know better now, don't we?
I'm the first one to admit that I'm no math wiz — never was. When it comes to numbers, I'm downright challenged. Over the last several days, I've had the unenviable task of trying to make heads or tails out of the state education aid our local school districts can expect to receive under the budget plan approved by the state legislature last week.
About the only thing I can say with certainty is that I don't blame our local school superintendents one bit for saying they're not willing to draw any conclusions yet about the revenue that may — or may not — flow downstate from our capital.
Here's the list of state education aid categories from the "2006-07 State Aid Projections" published by the state education department: flex aid; supplemental ENA; limited English proficiency enrollment adjustment aid; full-day K conversion; tax limitation; BOCES & special services,; excess cost; building & building reorganization incentive; transportation; hardware & technology; software, library & textbook; universal prekindergarten; early grade class-size reduction; teacher support aid; and — my personal favorite — sound basic education aid.
In addition to these categories of aid, this year we have supplemental universal pre-K aid; additional universal prekindergarten aid; high tax aid and EXCEL, which stands for "expanding our children's education and learning."
Presumably each category comes with its own unique formula for distributing the state largesse, or why else would there be different categories?
What does it all mean? Fear not, the state education department publishes a cheat sheet to "explain" these categories and how aid under each is calculated. This little pearl contains statements such as the following:
"Flex aid is the sum of: (1) Tier 1 Flex Aid which is the sum of 2004-05 Comprehensive Operating, Extraordinary Needs, Educationally Related Support Services, Limited English Proficiency, Summer School and Maintenance and Repair Aids; (2) Tier 2 Flex Aid, which is Flex Selected TAPU multiplied by the sum of $6 and the result of $55 multiplied by the Geographic Cost of Education Index-based cost adjustment multiplied by the aid ratio (1.37 - 1.10* Flex CWR), maximum .90, minimum .05); and ..."
This only represents about one-third of the "explanation" of what Flex Aid is. I couldn't bear to copy any more. And remember, Flex Aid is just one component of the total state aid picture.
What sadistic mind (no doubt belonging to a government bureaucrat) dreams up formulas like these? Can anyone really explain them, including the state legislators who theoretically adopt them or the school officials who must live with them?
Or are they all, as I suspect, a smoke screen for what really goes on up in Albany during budget season: the leaders of the Assembly and Senate sit down with the governor and carve up the pie. All the wordy explanations, bordering on double talk, exist just to confuse the rest of us into thinking there is a method in their madness. But we know better now, don't we?
Thursday, March 30, 2006
When the personal is political
I am the granddaughter of an illegal immigrant. My paternal grandfather, Guiseppe Civiletti, made the journey from Sicily to America as a stowaway on a transatlantic cargo ship to begin a new life in the land of opportunity, where the streets were paved with gold. He landed in New York City in the 1920s and found employment as a dock worker in the city’s marine terminals, where he worked until his retirement. He met and married my grandmother, a U.S. citizen by birth, but he never became a citizen himself, though he loved this country fiercely. It was, he would often remind us, “the greatest nation on earth.”
I wonder what Grandpa would think of the immigration debate raging today. (He died at age 104 in 1998.) He was more of a law-and-order kind of guy than a liberal on various social issues, but I wonder how his own experience entering this country without documentation and settling here to work, marry and raise a family would have tempered his perspective. I wonder. Would he empathize with the young Hispanic men who leave their families behind in order to find work in a strange land to earn the money to feed their children back home? Or would he view them — non-Europeans — as different? I know the attacks on his beloved adopted country carried out on Sept. 11, 2001, had he lived to see them, would have devastated and angered him. And I could imagine him getting caught up in the fervor to seal our borders in the interest of homeland security. But then I wonder, would he reflect on the days he spent in the dark recesses below deck on a ship bound for a new land in the hopes of pursuing a better life and feel some twinge of kinship with these new immigrants?
We view the issue in black and white terms. It’s a homeland security issue. We need to protect our nation from future attacks. It’s an economic issue. Many industries rely on immigrant labor in order to thrive or even survive. It’s a law-and-order issue. We should not provide safe haven to people who knowingly violate our laws.
It’s a myriad of social issues. We are tottering under the burden of the influx of undocumented workers in our neighborhoods, the overcrowded rental housing, the uncompensated care provided by community hospitals, the extra expense of educating non-English-speaking children in our schools.
It’s an emotional issue. A whole package of complex, emotionally charged issues, in fact. Why can’t they respect our immigration laws? Why can’t they learn to speak our language? They look different, sound different. Why can’t they assimilate the way our immigrant ancestors did?
In the end, what most of us lose sight of, more often than not, is that this is about people, not about issues. Every one of the men we see pedaling to work by dawn’s early light has a story. Each of them has a family, a history, a motivation for seeking something in the United States of America that he can’t find at home. Mostly, it’s money.
Ramon is a 35-year-old Guatemalan. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally almost two years ago. He walked here. The journey on foot took more than a month. He is the married father of five. His youngest child was just 2 years old when he left in pursuit of earning a living in America that would enable him to feed his family in Guatemala. Ramon frets that his young son doesn’t remember him. He proudly shows me pictures of his children and construction-paper-and-crayon birthday cards they’ve sent him. “Papa we love you,” wrote his eldest, Isabel, age 9, in a neat, formal cursive script. “Thank you for working so hard for us.”
And work hard he does, virtually from dawn to dusk, earning $100 a day employed as a laborer by an American man who runs a Riverhead-based landscaping and masonry business. He is one of about eight or 10 Guatemalans working for this American businessman, who shuttles them to job sites in the back of a beat-up work van. He shouts at them, barking out orders. He refers to them crudely as “spics” and claims he doesn’t even know their names. It doesn’t matter, he says. They work. That’s all that matters.
Ramon and the others are happy — delighted even — for the chance to work. There is work back home, he says, but no money. The pay here is far more than anything they could ever earn back home. Ramon tells me he’s already sent more than $20,000 U.S. to his wife. He is proud and amazed that he could earn so much for his family here.
But it’s a bittersweet accomplishment. He misses them terribly, he tells me in faltering English, and his eyes well up as he gazes longingly at the tattered-edged photographs. He doesn’t know when or if he’ll see them again, because returning to Guatemala may mean never being able to come back to the U.S. again. He and the others I’ve spoken to are clearly here out of desperation, not out of disrespect for our laws. They came here, like nearly all other American immigrants, in search of a better life for their families. That’s all they really want.
In the emotionally charged debates about the social, economic and legal issues surrounding the influx of illegal immigrants across our southern borders, it would do us all well to pause for a moment and remember that simple fact. They are people, like the rest of us, like our immigrant ancestors, who came to America in search of a better life, to pursue “the American dream.” Surely America, the land of opportunity, a nation of immigrants, can find a way to welcome them.
I wonder what Grandpa would think of the immigration debate raging today. (He died at age 104 in 1998.) He was more of a law-and-order kind of guy than a liberal on various social issues, but I wonder how his own experience entering this country without documentation and settling here to work, marry and raise a family would have tempered his perspective. I wonder. Would he empathize with the young Hispanic men who leave their families behind in order to find work in a strange land to earn the money to feed their children back home? Or would he view them — non-Europeans — as different? I know the attacks on his beloved adopted country carried out on Sept. 11, 2001, had he lived to see them, would have devastated and angered him. And I could imagine him getting caught up in the fervor to seal our borders in the interest of homeland security. But then I wonder, would he reflect on the days he spent in the dark recesses below deck on a ship bound for a new land in the hopes of pursuing a better life and feel some twinge of kinship with these new immigrants?
We view the issue in black and white terms. It’s a homeland security issue. We need to protect our nation from future attacks. It’s an economic issue. Many industries rely on immigrant labor in order to thrive or even survive. It’s a law-and-order issue. We should not provide safe haven to people who knowingly violate our laws.
It’s a myriad of social issues. We are tottering under the burden of the influx of undocumented workers in our neighborhoods, the overcrowded rental housing, the uncompensated care provided by community hospitals, the extra expense of educating non-English-speaking children in our schools.
It’s an emotional issue. A whole package of complex, emotionally charged issues, in fact. Why can’t they respect our immigration laws? Why can’t they learn to speak our language? They look different, sound different. Why can’t they assimilate the way our immigrant ancestors did?
In the end, what most of us lose sight of, more often than not, is that this is about people, not about issues. Every one of the men we see pedaling to work by dawn’s early light has a story. Each of them has a family, a history, a motivation for seeking something in the United States of America that he can’t find at home. Mostly, it’s money.
Ramon is a 35-year-old Guatemalan. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally almost two years ago. He walked here. The journey on foot took more than a month. He is the married father of five. His youngest child was just 2 years old when he left in pursuit of earning a living in America that would enable him to feed his family in Guatemala. Ramon frets that his young son doesn’t remember him. He proudly shows me pictures of his children and construction-paper-and-crayon birthday cards they’ve sent him. “Papa we love you,” wrote his eldest, Isabel, age 9, in a neat, formal cursive script. “Thank you for working so hard for us.”
And work hard he does, virtually from dawn to dusk, earning $100 a day employed as a laborer by an American man who runs a Riverhead-based landscaping and masonry business. He is one of about eight or 10 Guatemalans working for this American businessman, who shuttles them to job sites in the back of a beat-up work van. He shouts at them, barking out orders. He refers to them crudely as “spics” and claims he doesn’t even know their names. It doesn’t matter, he says. They work. That’s all that matters.
Ramon and the others are happy — delighted even — for the chance to work. There is work back home, he says, but no money. The pay here is far more than anything they could ever earn back home. Ramon tells me he’s already sent more than $20,000 U.S. to his wife. He is proud and amazed that he could earn so much for his family here.
But it’s a bittersweet accomplishment. He misses them terribly, he tells me in faltering English, and his eyes well up as he gazes longingly at the tattered-edged photographs. He doesn’t know when or if he’ll see them again, because returning to Guatemala may mean never being able to come back to the U.S. again. He and the others I’ve spoken to are clearly here out of desperation, not out of disrespect for our laws. They came here, like nearly all other American immigrants, in search of a better life for their families. That’s all they really want.
In the emotionally charged debates about the social, economic and legal issues surrounding the influx of illegal immigrants across our southern borders, it would do us all well to pause for a moment and remember that simple fact. They are people, like the rest of us, like our immigrant ancestors, who came to America in search of a better life, to pursue “the American dream.” Surely America, the land of opportunity, a nation of immigrants, can find a way to welcome them.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
It could never happen to me
Cancer. One survivor likened hearing the diagnosis to an out-of-body experience — it was like watching it happen to somebody else. It couldn’t be you.
Oh, yes it could.
According to the American Cancer Society, in the U.S., men have a slightly less than one in two lifetime risk of developing cancer; for women the lifetime risk is a little more than one in three.
The key to surviving cancer is early detection of the disease, before it’s had a chance to spread beyond its site of origin. Recent improvement in cancer survival rates are due in large measure to the availability of better cancer screening technology. But better screening technology means nothing if you don’t take advantage of it.
My mom is a perfect example. She postponed getting her colonoscopy two or three times. She had very good reasons for putting it off, including even surgery to repair a torn meniscus (cartilage) in her knee. The colonoscopy was routine, not an urgent matter, in her mind. She had no personal history of cancer and no history of colon cancer in her family. And (unlike her eldest child, yours truly) she ate right, walked on her treadmill every day and, at age 67, was pretty darn fit and healthy. So she didn’t think twice about it. She had a new appointment for the colonoscopy in January 2004. She never made it. Mom came down with “a bug” right after Christmas 2003. Her stomach didn’t feel well for the next week; she had mild abdominal pain and bouts of diarrhea. In the wee hours of Jan. 3 the pain became intense, too intense to bear. My father brought her to the E.R. at Central Suffolk at 4 a.m. and called me up in tears.
Mom’s pain was caused by a near-total blockage in her large intestine. There, nestled in a location that allowed its growth to go undetected for probably more than a couple of years — because stool passing that part of the bowel is still in a liquid state, so no obstruction and hence no pain occurred — was a cancerous tumor the size of a softball. And the cancer had already spread beyond her colon to points throughout her abdominal cavity, rendering impossible any meaningful treatment or containment of the disease. Her surgeon at University Hospital, Dr. Martin Karpeh, could only remove the blockage and advise us to do what we could to ensure her comfort for the rest of her life — a period of no more than three to six months. We got that news on Jan. 14. She died on April 11, Easter Sunday.
My point in sharing some of the details of my mother’s ordeal is simple. Early detection means the difference between life and death. If my mother had regular colonoscopies, as all people age 50 and over should have, that softball-size tumor would have never had a chance to grow and spread. Odds are, it would have been detected when it was a mere polyp, and removed by the doctor doing the colonoscopy — without so much as a tiny incision. And my mom would be here with us today.
Let me say it again: Early detection means the difference between life and death. Remember, like my mom, you may not have any symptoms — until it’s too late. So early detection can’t happen without screening. And there is no excuse not to get screened for this completely preventable type of cancer — polyps removed are polyps that don’t have the opportunity to become cancerous tumors.
But people dread the screening. Let’s face it, the idea of a doctor probing your intestines with a tube inserted in the anus — well, it’s not something most people look forward to. Other people fear the “prep.” Because of my mother’s fate, I had my first colonoscopy before age 50, in the summer of 2004. (Two polyps were found and removed. I’ll be having another colonoscopy this year.) I can speak from personal experience.
The day before the test, you’re on a liquid diet. The evening before the test, you spike a glass of juice with a couple of ounces of a citrus-flavored liquid that’s a mighty laxative. An hour or so after drinking this little cocktail, you spend about an hour in the bathroom. And that’s it. The next morning you repeat the drill, but bathroom time is significantly less.
The test itself lasts between five and 20 minutes. You’re given a light anesthesia and don’t feel a thing, during or afterward. For me, the worse part was being involuntarily subjected to watching Regis Philbin having a pedicure during the “Regis Show” on TV while waiting for my turn with Dr. Dhrien Mehta, the gastroenterologist who did my colonoscopy at Central Suffolk. I was up and out in little more than an hour, and back at my computer working by noontime.
The tiny probe used by Dr. Mehta can remove polyps and also take color images of the inside of your colon. Dr. Mehta proudly displays these images for you during your post-test office visit. I can say they are some of my most photogenic pictures ever.
As FDR said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, folks. Don’t let fear stop you from screening for colorectal cancer, because fear won’t just paralyze you — in this case, your fear could kill you.
March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. If you’re 50 or older, have a colonoscopy. Call your doctor for a referral. Don’t delay. You could very well pay for your procrastination with your life. For more information visit www.cancer.org, the very informative and useful website of the American Cancer Society.
**
A Relay for Life fund-raiser for cancer research and education is scheduled in our community on June 16 and 17 at Riverhead High School. Riverhead Relay for Life has its kickoff meeting tomorrow night, Friday, March 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Riverhead High School. Get involved in this worthy cause. Join a team or support a friend who’s participating. After all, can you think of anyone whose life has not been touched by cancer?
Oh, yes it could.
According to the American Cancer Society, in the U.S., men have a slightly less than one in two lifetime risk of developing cancer; for women the lifetime risk is a little more than one in three.
The key to surviving cancer is early detection of the disease, before it’s had a chance to spread beyond its site of origin. Recent improvement in cancer survival rates are due in large measure to the availability of better cancer screening technology. But better screening technology means nothing if you don’t take advantage of it.
My mom is a perfect example. She postponed getting her colonoscopy two or three times. She had very good reasons for putting it off, including even surgery to repair a torn meniscus (cartilage) in her knee. The colonoscopy was routine, not an urgent matter, in her mind. She had no personal history of cancer and no history of colon cancer in her family. And (unlike her eldest child, yours truly) she ate right, walked on her treadmill every day and, at age 67, was pretty darn fit and healthy. So she didn’t think twice about it. She had a new appointment for the colonoscopy in January 2004. She never made it. Mom came down with “a bug” right after Christmas 2003. Her stomach didn’t feel well for the next week; she had mild abdominal pain and bouts of diarrhea. In the wee hours of Jan. 3 the pain became intense, too intense to bear. My father brought her to the E.R. at Central Suffolk at 4 a.m. and called me up in tears.
Mom’s pain was caused by a near-total blockage in her large intestine. There, nestled in a location that allowed its growth to go undetected for probably more than a couple of years — because stool passing that part of the bowel is still in a liquid state, so no obstruction and hence no pain occurred — was a cancerous tumor the size of a softball. And the cancer had already spread beyond her colon to points throughout her abdominal cavity, rendering impossible any meaningful treatment or containment of the disease. Her surgeon at University Hospital, Dr. Martin Karpeh, could only remove the blockage and advise us to do what we could to ensure her comfort for the rest of her life — a period of no more than three to six months. We got that news on Jan. 14. She died on April 11, Easter Sunday.
My point in sharing some of the details of my mother’s ordeal is simple. Early detection means the difference between life and death. If my mother had regular colonoscopies, as all people age 50 and over should have, that softball-size tumor would have never had a chance to grow and spread. Odds are, it would have been detected when it was a mere polyp, and removed by the doctor doing the colonoscopy — without so much as a tiny incision. And my mom would be here with us today.
Let me say it again: Early detection means the difference between life and death. Remember, like my mom, you may not have any symptoms — until it’s too late. So early detection can’t happen without screening. And there is no excuse not to get screened for this completely preventable type of cancer — polyps removed are polyps that don’t have the opportunity to become cancerous tumors.
But people dread the screening. Let’s face it, the idea of a doctor probing your intestines with a tube inserted in the anus — well, it’s not something most people look forward to. Other people fear the “prep.” Because of my mother’s fate, I had my first colonoscopy before age 50, in the summer of 2004. (Two polyps were found and removed. I’ll be having another colonoscopy this year.) I can speak from personal experience.
The day before the test, you’re on a liquid diet. The evening before the test, you spike a glass of juice with a couple of ounces of a citrus-flavored liquid that’s a mighty laxative. An hour or so after drinking this little cocktail, you spend about an hour in the bathroom. And that’s it. The next morning you repeat the drill, but bathroom time is significantly less.
The test itself lasts between five and 20 minutes. You’re given a light anesthesia and don’t feel a thing, during or afterward. For me, the worse part was being involuntarily subjected to watching Regis Philbin having a pedicure during the “Regis Show” on TV while waiting for my turn with Dr. Dhrien Mehta, the gastroenterologist who did my colonoscopy at Central Suffolk. I was up and out in little more than an hour, and back at my computer working by noontime.
The tiny probe used by Dr. Mehta can remove polyps and also take color images of the inside of your colon. Dr. Mehta proudly displays these images for you during your post-test office visit. I can say they are some of my most photogenic pictures ever.
As FDR said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, folks. Don’t let fear stop you from screening for colorectal cancer, because fear won’t just paralyze you — in this case, your fear could kill you.
March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. If you’re 50 or older, have a colonoscopy. Call your doctor for a referral. Don’t delay. You could very well pay for your procrastination with your life. For more information visit www.cancer.org, the very informative and useful website of the American Cancer Society.
**
A Relay for Life fund-raiser for cancer research and education is scheduled in our community on June 16 and 17 at Riverhead High School. Riverhead Relay for Life has its kickoff meeting tomorrow night, Friday, March 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Riverhead High School. Get involved in this worthy cause. Join a team or support a friend who’s participating. After all, can you think of anyone whose life has not been touched by cancer?
It could never happen to me
Cancer. One survivor likened hearing the diagnosis to an out-of-body experience — it was like watching it happen to somebody else. It couldn’t be you.
Oh, yes it could.
According to the American Cancer Society, in the U.S., men have a slightly less than one in two lifetime risk of developing cancer; for women the lifetime risk is a little more than one in three.
The key to surviving cancer is early detection of the disease, before it’s had a chance to spread beyond its site of origin. Recent improvement in cancer survival rates are due in large measure to the availability of better cancer screening technology. But better screening technology means nothing if you don’t take advantage of it.
My mom is a perfect example. She postponed getting her colonoscopy two or three times. She had very good reasons for putting it off, including even surgery to repair a torn meniscus (cartilage) in her knee. The colonoscopy was routine, not an urgent matter, in her mind. She had no personal history of cancer and no history of colon cancer in her family. And (unlike her eldest child, yours truly) she ate right, walked on her treadmill every day and, at age 67, was pretty darn fit and healthy. So she didn’t think twice about it. She had a new appointment for the colonoscopy in January 2004. She never made it. Mom came down with “a bug” right after Christmas 2003. Her stomach didn’t feel well for the next week; she had mild abdominal pain and bouts of diarrhea. In the wee hours of Jan. 3 the pain became intense, too intense to bear. My father brought her to the E.R. at Central Suffolk at 4 a.m. and called me up in tears.
Mom’s pain was caused by a near-total blockage in her large intestine. There, nestled in a location that allowed its growth to go undetected for probably more than a couple of years — because stool passing that part of the bowel is still in a liquid state, so no obstruction and hence no pain occurred — was a cancerous tumor the size of a softball. And the cancer had already spread beyond her colon to points throughout her abdominal cavity, rendering impossible any meaningful treatment or containment of the disease. Her surgeon at University Hospital, Dr. Martin Karpeh, could only remove the blockage and advise us to do what we could to ensure her comfort for the rest of her life — a period of no more than three to six months. We got that news on Jan. 14. She died on April 11, Easter Sunday.
My point in sharing some of the details of my mother’s ordeal is simple. Early detection means the difference between life and death. If my mother had regular colonoscopies, as all people age 50 and over should have, that softball-size tumor would have never had a chance to grow and spread. Odds are, it would have been detected when it was a mere polyp, and removed by the doctor doing the colonoscopy — without so much as a tiny incision. And my mom would be here with us today.
Let me say it again: Early detection means the difference between life and death. Remember, like my mom, you may not have any symptoms — until it’s too late. So early detection can’t happen without screening. And there is no excuse not to get screened for this completely preventable type of cancer — polyps removed are polyps that don’t have the opportunity to become cancerous tumors.
But people dread the screening. Let’s face it, the idea of a doctor probing your intestines with a tube inserted in the anus — well, it’s not something most people look forward to. Other people fear the “prep.” Because of my mother’s fate, I had my first colonoscopy before age 50, in the summer of 2004. (Two polyps were found and removed. I’ll be having another colonoscopy this year.) I can speak from personal experience.
The day before the test, you’re on a liquid diet. The evening before the test, you spike a glass of juice with a couple of ounces of a citrus-flavored liquid that’s a mighty laxative. An hour or so after drinking this little cocktail, you spend about an hour in the bathroom. And that’s it. The next morning you repeat the drill, but bathroom time is significantly less.
The test itself lasts between five and 20 minutes. You’re given a light anesthesia and don’t feel a thing, during or afterward. For me, the worse part was being involuntarily subjected to watching Regis Philbin having a pedicure during the “Regis Show” on TV while waiting for my turn with Dr. Dhrien Mehta, the gastroenterologist who did my colonoscopy at Central Suffolk. I was up and out in little more than an hour, and back at my computer working by noontime.
The tiny probe used by Dr. Mehta can remove polyps and also take color images of the inside of your colon. Dr. Mehta proudly displays these images for you during your post-test office visit. I can say they are some of my most photogenic pictures ever.
As FDR said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, folks. Don’t let fear stop you from screening for colorectal cancer, because fear won’t just paralyze you — in this case, your fear could kill you.
March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. If you’re 50 or older, have a colonoscopy. Call your doctor for a referral. Don’t delay. You could very well pay for your procrastination with your life. For more information visit www.cancer.org, the very informative and useful website of the American Cancer Society.
**
A Relay for Life fund-raiser for cancer research and education is scheduled in our community on June 16 and 17 at Riverhead High School. Riverhead Relay for Life has its kickoff meeting tomorrow night, Friday, March 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Riverhead High School. Get involved in this worthy cause. Join a team or support a friend who’s participating. After all, can you think of anyone whose life has not been touched by cancer?
Oh, yes it could.
According to the American Cancer Society, in the U.S., men have a slightly less than one in two lifetime risk of developing cancer; for women the lifetime risk is a little more than one in three.
The key to surviving cancer is early detection of the disease, before it’s had a chance to spread beyond its site of origin. Recent improvement in cancer survival rates are due in large measure to the availability of better cancer screening technology. But better screening technology means nothing if you don’t take advantage of it.
My mom is a perfect example. She postponed getting her colonoscopy two or three times. She had very good reasons for putting it off, including even surgery to repair a torn meniscus (cartilage) in her knee. The colonoscopy was routine, not an urgent matter, in her mind. She had no personal history of cancer and no history of colon cancer in her family. And (unlike her eldest child, yours truly) she ate right, walked on her treadmill every day and, at age 67, was pretty darn fit and healthy. So she didn’t think twice about it. She had a new appointment for the colonoscopy in January 2004. She never made it. Mom came down with “a bug” right after Christmas 2003. Her stomach didn’t feel well for the next week; she had mild abdominal pain and bouts of diarrhea. In the wee hours of Jan. 3 the pain became intense, too intense to bear. My father brought her to the E.R. at Central Suffolk at 4 a.m. and called me up in tears.
Mom’s pain was caused by a near-total blockage in her large intestine. There, nestled in a location that allowed its growth to go undetected for probably more than a couple of years — because stool passing that part of the bowel is still in a liquid state, so no obstruction and hence no pain occurred — was a cancerous tumor the size of a softball. And the cancer had already spread beyond her colon to points throughout her abdominal cavity, rendering impossible any meaningful treatment or containment of the disease. Her surgeon at University Hospital, Dr. Martin Karpeh, could only remove the blockage and advise us to do what we could to ensure her comfort for the rest of her life — a period of no more than three to six months. We got that news on Jan. 14. She died on April 11, Easter Sunday.
My point in sharing some of the details of my mother’s ordeal is simple. Early detection means the difference between life and death. If my mother had regular colonoscopies, as all people age 50 and over should have, that softball-size tumor would have never had a chance to grow and spread. Odds are, it would have been detected when it was a mere polyp, and removed by the doctor doing the colonoscopy — without so much as a tiny incision. And my mom would be here with us today.
Let me say it again: Early detection means the difference between life and death. Remember, like my mom, you may not have any symptoms — until it’s too late. So early detection can’t happen without screening. And there is no excuse not to get screened for this completely preventable type of cancer — polyps removed are polyps that don’t have the opportunity to become cancerous tumors.
But people dread the screening. Let’s face it, the idea of a doctor probing your intestines with a tube inserted in the anus — well, it’s not something most people look forward to. Other people fear the “prep.” Because of my mother’s fate, I had my first colonoscopy before age 50, in the summer of 2004. (Two polyps were found and removed. I’ll be having another colonoscopy this year.) I can speak from personal experience.
The day before the test, you’re on a liquid diet. The evening before the test, you spike a glass of juice with a couple of ounces of a citrus-flavored liquid that’s a mighty laxative. An hour or so after drinking this little cocktail, you spend about an hour in the bathroom. And that’s it. The next morning you repeat the drill, but bathroom time is significantly less.
The test itself lasts between five and 20 minutes. You’re given a light anesthesia and don’t feel a thing, during or afterward. For me, the worse part was being involuntarily subjected to watching Regis Philbin having a pedicure during the “Regis Show” on TV while waiting for my turn with Dr. Dhrien Mehta, the gastroenterologist who did my colonoscopy at Central Suffolk. I was up and out in little more than an hour, and back at my computer working by noontime.
The tiny probe used by Dr. Mehta can remove polyps and also take color images of the inside of your colon. Dr. Mehta proudly displays these images for you during your post-test office visit. I can say they are some of my most photogenic pictures ever.
As FDR said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, folks. Don’t let fear stop you from screening for colorectal cancer, because fear won’t just paralyze you — in this case, your fear could kill you.
March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. If you’re 50 or older, have a colonoscopy. Call your doctor for a referral. Don’t delay. You could very well pay for your procrastination with your life. For more information visit www.cancer.org, the very informative and useful website of the American Cancer Society.
**
A Relay for Life fund-raiser for cancer research and education is scheduled in our community on June 16 and 17 at Riverhead High School. Riverhead Relay for Life has its kickoff meeting tomorrow night, Friday, March 3, at 6:30 p.m. at Riverhead High School. Get involved in this worthy cause. Join a team or support a friend who’s participating. After all, can you think of anyone whose life has not been touched by cancer?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
We're stuck in the 70s
1979 — the last time Riverhead Town did a comprehensive update of its property tax assessments. Twenty-seven years ago. Whoa! That's almost three decades! It's startling, and not because I'm a reval junkie. No, it takes my breath away just to think that my memory stretches that far back. Worse still, that long ago I was actually an adult. Well, more or less. 1979 was a watershed year for me — the year I graduated from college, moved out of my parents' home, and started law school at NYU. I'm not sure if I knew what a property tax assessment was in 1979, much less had an opinion about it. My mind was occupied with more important things, like who was I anyway and what did I want to be when I grew up. (Questions that took nearly as long to answer as the town has taken to update its tax rolls.)
In 1979, I found escape from the study of contract and tort law playing a brand-new arcade game called Asteroids in a little pub on MacDougal Street, competing against my 1L classmates. I did well, something my kids find hard to believe today, given the way I fumble with the controls of their Game Cube. How much have things changed since 1979? Here's a little collection of facts and trivia from 1979. It was a happening time.
The Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, after the Shah fled to Egypt. An "energy crisis" took place in the U.S. after OPEC boosted oil prices 50% over the course of the year. Gas prices hit an all-time high, actually breaking the $1 mark for the first time on Memorial Day weekend in 1979. Locally, gas shortages were handled by rationing and limits on purchases.
Sixty-six Americans were taken hostage in Iran, marking the beginning of a hostage crisis that would last 444 days, make Ted Koppel a household name, and the end of the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq. Margaret Thatcher was elected the first woman prime minister of Great Britain. Jamesport Fire Deparment accepted its first female firefighter.
There was an accident at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, releasing radiation into the atmosphere. LILCO still insisted it would open its $2 billion nuclear power plant in Shoreham the next year and build two more on the Sound in Jamesport, to boot. The Riverhead Town Board supported the Jamesport plant, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved it, too. Other plans didn't get support, like a plan to build an airport off Sound Avenue and Northville Turnpike, and a plan to build a cross-Sound bridge from Riverhead or Wading River to Connecticut.
1979 was the year the Peconic County movement really gathered steam. It was also the year an unknown school teacher from Wading River, Joe Janoski, ousted Riverhead native Allen Smith from the supervisor's office. The supervisor's annual salary was then $28,000.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average high mark was 907 points in 1979. Inflation was a ravaging 13.3%. The prime lending rate was 15.75%. Unemployment was over 6%. The federal government approved a $1.5 billion bailout for Chrysler Corporation. Federal spending was $504.03 billion and federal debt was $829.5 billion. The Riverhead school district operating budget was $13.5 million.
A first-class stamp cost 15 cents. A pound of coffee was just $1.79. Riverhead had not a single vineyard. Its principal crops were potatoes and cauliflower. A man could buy a three-piece suit at Swezey's for $59.99.
1979 was also the year of the release of the first computer spreadsheet program available for personal computers, Visicalc. But personal computers were a rare thing, as the IBM PC was still in the future.
The year's hit movies were Alien, 10, The China Syndrome, Kramer vs. Kramer and Apocalypse Now. And movies were still being shown at the Suffolk Theatre.
Music — well it was a dark era in music as far as I was concerned. Disco ruled.
"60 Minutes" was America's favorite TV show. L.I. Cablevision brought Showtime to cable TV here, with a great deal of fanfare, including even a preview for the Town Board at Cablevision's Riverhead office.
And the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl. (Number XIV.)
A three-bedroom, two-bath house in Riverhead rented for $350 per month. A three-bedroom Cape Cod here listed for $42,000, while a ranch in Wading River on a quarter-acre listed for $49,500. A half-acre waterview lot in Jamesport was selling for $10,000. A Reeves Park bungalow — also water view — was listed at $25,500. A 100-foot wooded Soundfront building lot went for $55,000, and 59 acres on Main Road in Aquebogue, with a renovated two-story colonial house and two barns (zoned agriculture and business) was listed at $155,000.
See why our equalization rate is around 13% today? Those prices have gone the way of the eight-track tape player I used to own. There's no good reason why Riverhead's tax assessments shouldn't catch up with the 21st century.
Copyright 2006 Times/Review Newspapers
In 1979, I found escape from the study of contract and tort law playing a brand-new arcade game called Asteroids in a little pub on MacDougal Street, competing against my 1L classmates. I did well, something my kids find hard to believe today, given the way I fumble with the controls of their Game Cube. How much have things changed since 1979? Here's a little collection of facts and trivia from 1979. It was a happening time.
The Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran, after the Shah fled to Egypt. An "energy crisis" took place in the U.S. after OPEC boosted oil prices 50% over the course of the year. Gas prices hit an all-time high, actually breaking the $1 mark for the first time on Memorial Day weekend in 1979. Locally, gas shortages were handled by rationing and limits on purchases.
Sixty-six Americans were taken hostage in Iran, marking the beginning of a hostage crisis that would last 444 days, make Ted Koppel a household name, and the end of the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq. Margaret Thatcher was elected the first woman prime minister of Great Britain. Jamesport Fire Deparment accepted its first female firefighter.
There was an accident at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, releasing radiation into the atmosphere. LILCO still insisted it would open its $2 billion nuclear power plant in Shoreham the next year and build two more on the Sound in Jamesport, to boot. The Riverhead Town Board supported the Jamesport plant, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved it, too. Other plans didn't get support, like a plan to build an airport off Sound Avenue and Northville Turnpike, and a plan to build a cross-Sound bridge from Riverhead or Wading River to Connecticut.
1979 was the year the Peconic County movement really gathered steam. It was also the year an unknown school teacher from Wading River, Joe Janoski, ousted Riverhead native Allen Smith from the supervisor's office. The supervisor's annual salary was then $28,000.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average high mark was 907 points in 1979. Inflation was a ravaging 13.3%. The prime lending rate was 15.75%. Unemployment was over 6%. The federal government approved a $1.5 billion bailout for Chrysler Corporation. Federal spending was $504.03 billion and federal debt was $829.5 billion. The Riverhead school district operating budget was $13.5 million.
A first-class stamp cost 15 cents. A pound of coffee was just $1.79. Riverhead had not a single vineyard. Its principal crops were potatoes and cauliflower. A man could buy a three-piece suit at Swezey's for $59.99.
1979 was also the year of the release of the first computer spreadsheet program available for personal computers, Visicalc. But personal computers were a rare thing, as the IBM PC was still in the future.
The year's hit movies were Alien, 10, The China Syndrome, Kramer vs. Kramer and Apocalypse Now. And movies were still being shown at the Suffolk Theatre.
Music — well it was a dark era in music as far as I was concerned. Disco ruled.
"60 Minutes" was America's favorite TV show. L.I. Cablevision brought Showtime to cable TV here, with a great deal of fanfare, including even a preview for the Town Board at Cablevision's Riverhead office.
And the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl. (Number XIV.)
A three-bedroom, two-bath house in Riverhead rented for $350 per month. A three-bedroom Cape Cod here listed for $42,000, while a ranch in Wading River on a quarter-acre listed for $49,500. A half-acre waterview lot in Jamesport was selling for $10,000. A Reeves Park bungalow — also water view — was listed at $25,500. A 100-foot wooded Soundfront building lot went for $55,000, and 59 acres on Main Road in Aquebogue, with a renovated two-story colonial house and two barns (zoned agriculture and business) was listed at $155,000.
See why our equalization rate is around 13% today? Those prices have gone the way of the eight-track tape player I used to own. There's no good reason why Riverhead's tax assessments shouldn't catch up with the 21st century.
Copyright 2006 Times/Review Newspapers
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Knowing when to let go
I knew this day would come. In mid-2004, when I accepted the job of co-publisher of the company that publishes The News-Review, I knew that in order to do the job well, I’d have to find a new editor for this newspaper. It’s one of four weekly papers published by Times/Review Newspapers — along with The Suffolk Times, The Shelter Island Reporter, and The North Shore Sun.
As co-publisher I’m charged with the oversight and management of the editorial content and production of all four papers, as well as the special publications we put out throughout the year, including the Long Island Wine Press. This involves managing a staff of about 50 and plus an equal number of freelance reporters, columnists and photographers.
My co-publisher, Andrew Olsen, manages the business side of the company: advertising, circulation and finances. That division of labor is a traditional structure at Times/Review, where the separation of editorial and advertising is sacrosanct — as it must be to preserve the quality and integrity of our content.
Essentially, I’ve been working two full-time jobs at Times/Review since July 2004. I knew I’d have to find a new editor to manage the day-to-day affairs of The News-Review, but it’s been so hard to let go. This is my baby. I love this newspaper.
As the mother of two newly teenage girls, I’m facing a similar emotional struggle on the home front. The letting go stuff. It’s oh-so-hard. The girls are going away for the weekend with our church youth group on Friday and I’ve been losing sleep over it for a week. Will the bus get there safely? Will Katie pay attention and not get lost hiking in the woods? Will Courtney have sense enough to put on a jacket in 30-degree weather? Will they do all right tubing down a steep hill without Mom or Dad there to supervise? Will they change their socks when they get wet? What if they get sick?
OK, maybe I’m just a control freak and don’t want to accept that they’re just fine without me. Or maybe this is just normal. At least I’m letting them go — and restraining my husband from going along as a chaperone. A few deep breaths and I’m OK. Really.
“Letting go” of The News-Review is almost as rough. In fact, it’s even harder than I anticipated. When I made the final decision on my successor, I found myself overwhelmed by an odd mixture of excitement, relief and sadness. I’m choosing to focus on the exciting stuff, thank you very much.
I’m putting The News-Review in extremely capable and professional hands. John Stefans’s career in journalism goes back to the Vietnam era when he worked as an Army correspondent in Southeast Asia. He had a long corporate career after that, retiring from Chase Manhattan Bank as senior vice-president for corporate communications. After he “retired” he moved to Riverhead full time and went to work as the editor of The Traveler-Watchman. He resigned from that post in 2002 and came to work for Times/Review as a staff reporter. John left Times/Review to accept a position in Supervisor Phil Cardinale’s administration in 2004 — a job he thought he’d enjoy more than he actually did, and so he left that post last May. He’s been freelancing for Times/Review for a few months now. The job of News-Review editor is a natural and perfect fit.
John knows this town inside and out. He is plugged in here, which for me is one of the most important qualifications for the job. He loves our community and cares deeply about its future. He understands how government works — or doesn’t. He’s intelligent, fair-minded and plain-spoken. He’s not afraid to ask the tough questions and demand answers. His research is thorough, his reporting is accurate and his writing is engaging and lively. And, on top of all that, he’s a genuinely nice guy who’s a pleasure to work with.
If this is starting to sound like a letter of recommendation, I guess that’s because that’s exactly what it is. John will be working for you now, too, because this is, after all, your community newspaper.
While I will now begin to concentrate more fully on my role as co-publisher, I’m not forsaking “my baby” altogether. I’m not going anywhere. I still live in Riverhead and am as invested in its future as ever. I’ll still write this column (assuming the editor wants me.) And I’ll still be overseeing what appears on the pages of this publication every week. You can still reach me at 298-3200 or at denise@timesreview.com with questions, comments and, of course, complaints. And if I’m really lucky, sometimes I’ll even have an opportunity to write a story or two.
With a couple of deep, deep breaths...here we go.
As co-publisher I’m charged with the oversight and management of the editorial content and production of all four papers, as well as the special publications we put out throughout the year, including the Long Island Wine Press. This involves managing a staff of about 50 and plus an equal number of freelance reporters, columnists and photographers.
My co-publisher, Andrew Olsen, manages the business side of the company: advertising, circulation and finances. That division of labor is a traditional structure at Times/Review, where the separation of editorial and advertising is sacrosanct — as it must be to preserve the quality and integrity of our content.
Essentially, I’ve been working two full-time jobs at Times/Review since July 2004. I knew I’d have to find a new editor to manage the day-to-day affairs of The News-Review, but it’s been so hard to let go. This is my baby. I love this newspaper.
As the mother of two newly teenage girls, I’m facing a similar emotional struggle on the home front. The letting go stuff. It’s oh-so-hard. The girls are going away for the weekend with our church youth group on Friday and I’ve been losing sleep over it for a week. Will the bus get there safely? Will Katie pay attention and not get lost hiking in the woods? Will Courtney have sense enough to put on a jacket in 30-degree weather? Will they do all right tubing down a steep hill without Mom or Dad there to supervise? Will they change their socks when they get wet? What if they get sick?
OK, maybe I’m just a control freak and don’t want to accept that they’re just fine without me. Or maybe this is just normal. At least I’m letting them go — and restraining my husband from going along as a chaperone. A few deep breaths and I’m OK. Really.
“Letting go” of The News-Review is almost as rough. In fact, it’s even harder than I anticipated. When I made the final decision on my successor, I found myself overwhelmed by an odd mixture of excitement, relief and sadness. I’m choosing to focus on the exciting stuff, thank you very much.
I’m putting The News-Review in extremely capable and professional hands. John Stefans’s career in journalism goes back to the Vietnam era when he worked as an Army correspondent in Southeast Asia. He had a long corporate career after that, retiring from Chase Manhattan Bank as senior vice-president for corporate communications. After he “retired” he moved to Riverhead full time and went to work as the editor of The Traveler-Watchman. He resigned from that post in 2002 and came to work for Times/Review as a staff reporter. John left Times/Review to accept a position in Supervisor Phil Cardinale’s administration in 2004 — a job he thought he’d enjoy more than he actually did, and so he left that post last May. He’s been freelancing for Times/Review for a few months now. The job of News-Review editor is a natural and perfect fit.
John knows this town inside and out. He is plugged in here, which for me is one of the most important qualifications for the job. He loves our community and cares deeply about its future. He understands how government works — or doesn’t. He’s intelligent, fair-minded and plain-spoken. He’s not afraid to ask the tough questions and demand answers. His research is thorough, his reporting is accurate and his writing is engaging and lively. And, on top of all that, he’s a genuinely nice guy who’s a pleasure to work with.
If this is starting to sound like a letter of recommendation, I guess that’s because that’s exactly what it is. John will be working for you now, too, because this is, after all, your community newspaper.
While I will now begin to concentrate more fully on my role as co-publisher, I’m not forsaking “my baby” altogether. I’m not going anywhere. I still live in Riverhead and am as invested in its future as ever. I’ll still write this column (assuming the editor wants me.) And I’ll still be overseeing what appears on the pages of this publication every week. You can still reach me at 298-3200 or at denise@timesreview.com with questions, comments and, of course, complaints. And if I’m really lucky, sometimes I’ll even have an opportunity to write a story or two.
With a couple of deep, deep breaths...here we go.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
A raw deal for East End
The health-care system in our country is a shambles. More than 45 million people nationwide, almost 16% of the population, have no health insurance. Untold millions are paying through the nose to have coverage. Businesses are struggling to pay the double-digit annual increase in premiums for employee health insurance. People have to rely on an underground market to purchase prescription medications made in the U.S. from suppliers overseas because the cost of the medication in the U.S. is prohibitive.
“The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis,” according to the National Coalition for Health Care. Hospitals in the U.S. provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year, the coalition says, and over 30% of emergency department visits by the uninsured are considered nonurgent.
Central Suffolk Hospital in Riverhead, a private nonprofit community hospital, shoulders a burden, all by itself, of more than $5 million in uncompensated care every year. Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport shells out more than $1.5 million a year in uncompensated care, too. That’s care that a hospital is obligated to provide -— it can’t turn a patient away — for which it’s never paid. The uncompensated-care burden borne by local hospitals has been growing, just as the number of uninsured has been growing. Also contributing to the burden in our region is the growing number of undocumented immigrants on the East End.
Whose responsibility is it to pay for health-care services rendered to the uninsured who can’t pay the cost themselves? Is it really the responsibility of a private nonprofit hospital? What is government’s proper role in this? Isn’t it the role of government, not the private sector, to provide for the “health, safety and welfare” of the population?
Where is Suffolk County government in this picture? It’s far away and unresponsive, as usual.
Not only must the local community hospitals shoulder the entire burden of uncompensated care in this county — which lacks a county hospital -— the county won’t even cooperate in the financing of an expansion desperately needed in order to be able to provide advanced medical services on the East End.
It would cost the county nothing to guarantee the replenishment of Central Suffolk’s debt service reserve fund on its capital project bonds, issued to finance its expansion. The hospital has several years’ worth of a reserve fund to pay the debt service if it can’t make the payments out of its annual operating revenues, so the county would not likely ever be called upon to ante up. But the county’s guarantee would save Central Suffolk millions of dollars in interest payments, because it would mean a much lower interest rate on the hospital’s bonds.
The county executive prides himself on his “fiscal conservatism.” That’s swell, but why must the residents of the East End always be unfairly burdened? The fair distribution of the county’s quarter-percent sales tax is an example long in the public eye. But recent revelations on how we’re being short-changed in the delivery of health-care services are astounding.
An article in Sunday’s New York Times revealed that the East End office of the public health clinic has only four public health nurses to serve the entire East End. As a result, patients who need care, who can’t get care anywhere else, aren’t being served by the county health department at all.
Legislator Ed Romaine charges that the county executive is illegally refusing to fill more than 200 vacant positions in the county health department — positions, in other words, that the County Legislature put in the budget and funded. What’s the money being used for, then? How many of those vacant positions are also partly funded by the state or federal governments, I wonder? How can the executive branch of government legally rewrite the budget adopted by the legislative branch in this way?
Then there’s the matter of the digital mammography unit that the County Legislature funded for the East End. Guess what? That, too, is still not in place, according to our county legislator.
Meanwhile, in the Riverside-Flanders area, an area with the lowest per-capita income in Suffolk County, where 80% of the land is off the tax rolls — in public ownership — a quarter of the calls handled by the volunteer ambulance corps come from county facilities within the district (which don’t pay ambulance district taxes). Nearly a hundred times each year the small Flanders volunteer department must respond to emergency calls at the County Jail. Why doesn’t the jail have its own ambulance? Suffolk County thinks it would be “a waste of money,” according to our sheriff. Sure, why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free? With the taxpayers of the poorest area in the county footing the bill, while tax revenues from the East End migrate westward, why should the county see it any other way?
Legislator Romaine is right. The East End is getting the shaft, again. Suffolk County government abandoned its county seat decades ago. It up and moved to Hauppauge. It neglects the citizens of the East End until it’s time for a photo op against the backdrop of a scenic farm field, to buttress a politician’s claim to the label “environmentalist.” Then the folks in Hauppauge wonder why we wanted Peconic County.
“The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis,” according to the National Coalition for Health Care. Hospitals in the U.S. provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year, the coalition says, and over 30% of emergency department visits by the uninsured are considered nonurgent.
Central Suffolk Hospital in Riverhead, a private nonprofit community hospital, shoulders a burden, all by itself, of more than $5 million in uncompensated care every year. Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport shells out more than $1.5 million a year in uncompensated care, too. That’s care that a hospital is obligated to provide -— it can’t turn a patient away — for which it’s never paid. The uncompensated-care burden borne by local hospitals has been growing, just as the number of uninsured has been growing. Also contributing to the burden in our region is the growing number of undocumented immigrants on the East End.
Whose responsibility is it to pay for health-care services rendered to the uninsured who can’t pay the cost themselves? Is it really the responsibility of a private nonprofit hospital? What is government’s proper role in this? Isn’t it the role of government, not the private sector, to provide for the “health, safety and welfare” of the population?
Where is Suffolk County government in this picture? It’s far away and unresponsive, as usual.
Not only must the local community hospitals shoulder the entire burden of uncompensated care in this county — which lacks a county hospital -— the county won’t even cooperate in the financing of an expansion desperately needed in order to be able to provide advanced medical services on the East End.
It would cost the county nothing to guarantee the replenishment of Central Suffolk’s debt service reserve fund on its capital project bonds, issued to finance its expansion. The hospital has several years’ worth of a reserve fund to pay the debt service if it can’t make the payments out of its annual operating revenues, so the county would not likely ever be called upon to ante up. But the county’s guarantee would save Central Suffolk millions of dollars in interest payments, because it would mean a much lower interest rate on the hospital’s bonds.
The county executive prides himself on his “fiscal conservatism.” That’s swell, but why must the residents of the East End always be unfairly burdened? The fair distribution of the county’s quarter-percent sales tax is an example long in the public eye. But recent revelations on how we’re being short-changed in the delivery of health-care services are astounding.
An article in Sunday’s New York Times revealed that the East End office of the public health clinic has only four public health nurses to serve the entire East End. As a result, patients who need care, who can’t get care anywhere else, aren’t being served by the county health department at all.
Legislator Ed Romaine charges that the county executive is illegally refusing to fill more than 200 vacant positions in the county health department — positions, in other words, that the County Legislature put in the budget and funded. What’s the money being used for, then? How many of those vacant positions are also partly funded by the state or federal governments, I wonder? How can the executive branch of government legally rewrite the budget adopted by the legislative branch in this way?
Then there’s the matter of the digital mammography unit that the County Legislature funded for the East End. Guess what? That, too, is still not in place, according to our county legislator.
Meanwhile, in the Riverside-Flanders area, an area with the lowest per-capita income in Suffolk County, where 80% of the land is off the tax rolls — in public ownership — a quarter of the calls handled by the volunteer ambulance corps come from county facilities within the district (which don’t pay ambulance district taxes). Nearly a hundred times each year the small Flanders volunteer department must respond to emergency calls at the County Jail. Why doesn’t the jail have its own ambulance? Suffolk County thinks it would be “a waste of money,” according to our sheriff. Sure, why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free? With the taxpayers of the poorest area in the county footing the bill, while tax revenues from the East End migrate westward, why should the county see it any other way?
Legislator Romaine is right. The East End is getting the shaft, again. Suffolk County government abandoned its county seat decades ago. It up and moved to Hauppauge. It neglects the citizens of the East End until it’s time for a photo op against the backdrop of a scenic farm field, to buttress a politician’s claim to the label “environmentalist.” Then the folks in Hauppauge wonder why we wanted Peconic County.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
My wet suit resolution
There’s nothing like a wet suit to accent bulges and curves best left hidden under baggy shirts and slacks. I found that out last Wednesday night when I came home from work to find my husband had a new “wallpaper” on our kitchen computer: a photo of our family of four decked out in wet suits, taken on our trip to Florida over the Christmas break.
Ouch.
When you don’t want to look, it’s easy to avoid mirrors. But a large color photograph on the 17” computer monitor in the kitchen is rather unavoidable. Photos don’t lie. And there I was.
The expanse beneath that black rubber suit — the breadth of the hips, the girth of the belly, and oh, my oh my, those thighs — wasn’t really a surprise. After all, I live in this body. And it’s been talking to me. Stiff joints, knee pain, something called a hiatal hernia. My doctor, a very nice, very polite young man, told me several months ago that I should lose some weight. He seemed worried about offending me, uncomfortable about saying so, practically whispering the advice. He was very gentle. I laughed. Yeah, I’m starting to suffer from fat old lady syndrome, I observed with a jolly chuckle that belied my inward embarrassment. He nodded politely. I promised to pay attention to his advice. I didn’t.
I knew I should heed his admonition, and I thought about it every day, but did nothing. I looked hard at the image of myself in that wet suit. I sat down in front of the computer and stared. Then I changed the picture to one he took of dolphins frolicking at Sea World. There. Much better.
I have to do something about this, I went to bed thinking that night. I realized I’d need help. I didn’t know where to begin. Sure, I’d dieted before. I was never svelte. In fact, I’ve battled with a weight problem since adolescence. As an adult, I came to accept the fact that I would never be thin. But I’d always been pretty fit. Somewhere along the line, being “not thin” became being overweight, then significantly overweight, then, well, obese. There. I’ve said it. And it’s official. My body mass index (BMI) is over 30, and that’s officially obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
I eat too much of the wrong foods and don’t get any regular exercise. That’ll do it. And it has.
I’ve put on 60 pounds in the last 15 years. Sixty pounds!
It happened that I had a breakfast meeting with Central Suffolk Hospital CEO Andy Mitchell the very next day. We met at Lolly’s, a Riverhead classic on Route 58, where you can get great coffee and eggs with the works. Fresh from my horror of the night before, I ordered oatmeal, and was served a huge, steaming bowl of oats. I ate only half.
I brought up the subject of nutrition with Andy, lamenting about the extent of my excess baggage. He told me to read The South Beach Diet. “Don’t mind the silly name,” he advised. Truly, without his recommendation, I would have never picked the book up for that very reason. It sounded like another one of those fad diets, and I knew better. I need to eat less and move more — end of story.
Not exactly. Cardiologist Arthur Agatston, author of The South Beach Diet, explains in very understandable, conversational terms, the science behind gaining — and losing — weight. He sheds light on the role of sugar in the obesity epidemic that’s gripping our nation. Sugar found in many different guises in the processed foods that make up a large part of the American diet, along with nasty fats hidden in unlikely places. And how and why they pose such a serious threat to our health, especially our cardiovascular health.
Dr. Agatston sums up the principles of his diet, devised to help his cardiology patients lose weight and regain their health, like this: “good carbohydrates and good fats, nutrient dense whole foods, lean sources of protein, and plenty of fiber.” You don’t have to approach each meal with a scale and a calculator. And you don’t have to eat anything weird or tasteless. The diet aims to cure you of the sugar addiction you probably don’t even know you have, to fix your metabolism, and to educate you about food so you can make the right food choices. It literally allows you to eat “normal” meals and not feel deprived, while losing one to two pounds per week, the rate doctors say is best for permanent weight loss. I bought the book — in paperback for $7.99 — and read it Saturday. I never read a book about nutrition, health and weight loss that made as much sense.
My husband and I started the diet on Sunday. The biggest hitch is that, for the first two weeks, you can’t eat any sugar or starchy foods at all. But it hasn’t been as hard as you might think. Frankly, I feel too well-fed to be on a diet. We’ve also dusted off the treadmill in the basement and begun walking for half an hour each morning. And that feels really good, too.
I’ve never been one for new year’s resolutions. But the wet suit. That resolved it for me.
Ouch.
When you don’t want to look, it’s easy to avoid mirrors. But a large color photograph on the 17” computer monitor in the kitchen is rather unavoidable. Photos don’t lie. And there I was.
The expanse beneath that black rubber suit — the breadth of the hips, the girth of the belly, and oh, my oh my, those thighs — wasn’t really a surprise. After all, I live in this body. And it’s been talking to me. Stiff joints, knee pain, something called a hiatal hernia. My doctor, a very nice, very polite young man, told me several months ago that I should lose some weight. He seemed worried about offending me, uncomfortable about saying so, practically whispering the advice. He was very gentle. I laughed. Yeah, I’m starting to suffer from fat old lady syndrome, I observed with a jolly chuckle that belied my inward embarrassment. He nodded politely. I promised to pay attention to his advice. I didn’t.
I knew I should heed his admonition, and I thought about it every day, but did nothing. I looked hard at the image of myself in that wet suit. I sat down in front of the computer and stared. Then I changed the picture to one he took of dolphins frolicking at Sea World. There. Much better.
I have to do something about this, I went to bed thinking that night. I realized I’d need help. I didn’t know where to begin. Sure, I’d dieted before. I was never svelte. In fact, I’ve battled with a weight problem since adolescence. As an adult, I came to accept the fact that I would never be thin. But I’d always been pretty fit. Somewhere along the line, being “not thin” became being overweight, then significantly overweight, then, well, obese. There. I’ve said it. And it’s official. My body mass index (BMI) is over 30, and that’s officially obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
I eat too much of the wrong foods and don’t get any regular exercise. That’ll do it. And it has.
I’ve put on 60 pounds in the last 15 years. Sixty pounds!
It happened that I had a breakfast meeting with Central Suffolk Hospital CEO Andy Mitchell the very next day. We met at Lolly’s, a Riverhead classic on Route 58, where you can get great coffee and eggs with the works. Fresh from my horror of the night before, I ordered oatmeal, and was served a huge, steaming bowl of oats. I ate only half.
I brought up the subject of nutrition with Andy, lamenting about the extent of my excess baggage. He told me to read The South Beach Diet. “Don’t mind the silly name,” he advised. Truly, without his recommendation, I would have never picked the book up for that very reason. It sounded like another one of those fad diets, and I knew better. I need to eat less and move more — end of story.
Not exactly. Cardiologist Arthur Agatston, author of The South Beach Diet, explains in very understandable, conversational terms, the science behind gaining — and losing — weight. He sheds light on the role of sugar in the obesity epidemic that’s gripping our nation. Sugar found in many different guises in the processed foods that make up a large part of the American diet, along with nasty fats hidden in unlikely places. And how and why they pose such a serious threat to our health, especially our cardiovascular health.
Dr. Agatston sums up the principles of his diet, devised to help his cardiology patients lose weight and regain their health, like this: “good carbohydrates and good fats, nutrient dense whole foods, lean sources of protein, and plenty of fiber.” You don’t have to approach each meal with a scale and a calculator. And you don’t have to eat anything weird or tasteless. The diet aims to cure you of the sugar addiction you probably don’t even know you have, to fix your metabolism, and to educate you about food so you can make the right food choices. It literally allows you to eat “normal” meals and not feel deprived, while losing one to two pounds per week, the rate doctors say is best for permanent weight loss. I bought the book — in paperback for $7.99 — and read it Saturday. I never read a book about nutrition, health and weight loss that made as much sense.
My husband and I started the diet on Sunday. The biggest hitch is that, for the first two weeks, you can’t eat any sugar or starchy foods at all. But it hasn’t been as hard as you might think. Frankly, I feel too well-fed to be on a diet. We’ve also dusted off the treadmill in the basement and begun walking for half an hour each morning. And that feels really good, too.
I’ve never been one for new year’s resolutions. But the wet suit. That resolved it for me.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Flogging by blogging
So much for the flush of optimism I was feeling as the new year dawned. 2006 was barely 10 days old when I heard a story from one of our reporters that hit me like a punch in the stomach.
Riverhead’s longtime community development director, Andrea Lohneiss, for a six-month period between Sept. 2003 and March 2004, was licensed as a real estate salesperson and had her license “sponsored” by the town’s exclusive real estate broker for EPCAL, Jack O’Connor.
EPCAL is technically owned by the town’s Community Development Agency, and Andrea, an employee of the town, is the director of that agency. She’s served in this capacity since 1988 or ’89, hired by the Town Board on which I sat. I supported her appointment. She had great credentials, and that was good for the town. She was also a registered Republican, and that was bad for me, a newly elected Democratic councilwoman being pressured by her party to appoint someone else. I think of Andrea’s appointment as the beginning of the end of my political career. But I never for a single moment regretted it. She is a smart, hard-working, dedicated public servant. Here’s one example: She gave birth to her third child on a Friday afternoon and was back in the office Monday morning working on a grant application. Andrea has taken Riverhead’s CDA to a new level, winning grant monies the town never before even dreamed of.
In the two decades I’ve known Andrea, I’ve never once seen her do anything that made me question her integrity as a public official. The way she has carried out her duties, ably serving five administrations and always managing to stay out of politics, has always been above reproach.
For a paid staff member of the CDA to have a business relationship of any kind with the CDA’s exclusive real estate broker for EPCAL crosses a line of ethics or intelligence that I would never have expected from Andrea Lohneiss. It creates an appearance of impropriety, and for Andrea not to realize this was uncharacteristically stupid.
But in my heart I don’t believe it’s anything more than that. This controversy is being fueled by an Internet gossip blog populated by people who use the cloak of anonymity afforded by the Internet to advance their own agendas, even if it means raking someone over the coals who doesn’t deserve it. They propagate misinformation, half-truths and sometimes out-and-out lies to do it. And they don’t even have the courage to sign their name to their statements. Andrea has not been the only one to suffer this flogging by blogging. Town Attorney Dawn Thomas was tied to the blog site’s whipping post last fall, along with the supervisor, members of his family, councilwomen Blass and Sanders and, yes, yours truly. Internet message boards can be wonderful means by which to communicate, express ideas and debate public policy — but they can also be the electronic equivalent of bathroom walls where hateful graffiti is scrawled anonymously by mean junior-high-schoolers.
There’s certainly no shortage of people around Riverhead who would love to see Andrea hang. Some of them have an ax to grind with Andrea; some are serving their own political and financial agendas. Some are people I don’t trust at all, because I’ve seen too much of their own questionable behavior to believe that their motives are good, regardless of the issue at hand.
The plain and simple truth is that Andrea is and always has been a stickler for detail and making people follow the rules. That can get in the way of people’s plans, and there are people who despise her for it. And they would like nothing better than to get her out of Town Hall.
Andrea having Jack O’Connor “hold” her real estate license was a dumb thing to do, probably the only dumb thing I’ve ever witnessed her do. I believe Andrea when she tells me it was an honest mistake and she never earned a single cent as a real estate salesperson. I believe her because I know her and I know her character. Andrea is not a liar.
Calls for her resignation by anonymous bloggers on a political gossip message board are based on a short-lived error of judgment that’s now more than two years old — and had no consequence to the town whatsoever. I believe they are overblown reactions by people who have their own motives for castigating the CDA director. Much of it revolves around EPCAL, and much of it revolves around promoting aviation at EPCAL.
There are two lessons to be learned from this episode, in my opinion. First, having an ethics code that contains stringent disclosure requirements of business relationships for all public officials is absolutely critical. Second, as consumers of information, we all have to be very careful about what masquerades as “fact” — in print, on the airwaves, and most especially in the anonymous haven that is the Internet.
Riverhead’s longtime community development director, Andrea Lohneiss, for a six-month period between Sept. 2003 and March 2004, was licensed as a real estate salesperson and had her license “sponsored” by the town’s exclusive real estate broker for EPCAL, Jack O’Connor.
EPCAL is technically owned by the town’s Community Development Agency, and Andrea, an employee of the town, is the director of that agency. She’s served in this capacity since 1988 or ’89, hired by the Town Board on which I sat. I supported her appointment. She had great credentials, and that was good for the town. She was also a registered Republican, and that was bad for me, a newly elected Democratic councilwoman being pressured by her party to appoint someone else. I think of Andrea’s appointment as the beginning of the end of my political career. But I never for a single moment regretted it. She is a smart, hard-working, dedicated public servant. Here’s one example: She gave birth to her third child on a Friday afternoon and was back in the office Monday morning working on a grant application. Andrea has taken Riverhead’s CDA to a new level, winning grant monies the town never before even dreamed of.
In the two decades I’ve known Andrea, I’ve never once seen her do anything that made me question her integrity as a public official. The way she has carried out her duties, ably serving five administrations and always managing to stay out of politics, has always been above reproach.
For a paid staff member of the CDA to have a business relationship of any kind with the CDA’s exclusive real estate broker for EPCAL crosses a line of ethics or intelligence that I would never have expected from Andrea Lohneiss. It creates an appearance of impropriety, and for Andrea not to realize this was uncharacteristically stupid.
But in my heart I don’t believe it’s anything more than that. This controversy is being fueled by an Internet gossip blog populated by people who use the cloak of anonymity afforded by the Internet to advance their own agendas, even if it means raking someone over the coals who doesn’t deserve it. They propagate misinformation, half-truths and sometimes out-and-out lies to do it. And they don’t even have the courage to sign their name to their statements. Andrea has not been the only one to suffer this flogging by blogging. Town Attorney Dawn Thomas was tied to the blog site’s whipping post last fall, along with the supervisor, members of his family, councilwomen Blass and Sanders and, yes, yours truly. Internet message boards can be wonderful means by which to communicate, express ideas and debate public policy — but they can also be the electronic equivalent of bathroom walls where hateful graffiti is scrawled anonymously by mean junior-high-schoolers.
There’s certainly no shortage of people around Riverhead who would love to see Andrea hang. Some of them have an ax to grind with Andrea; some are serving their own political and financial agendas. Some are people I don’t trust at all, because I’ve seen too much of their own questionable behavior to believe that their motives are good, regardless of the issue at hand.
The plain and simple truth is that Andrea is and always has been a stickler for detail and making people follow the rules. That can get in the way of people’s plans, and there are people who despise her for it. And they would like nothing better than to get her out of Town Hall.
Andrea having Jack O’Connor “hold” her real estate license was a dumb thing to do, probably the only dumb thing I’ve ever witnessed her do. I believe Andrea when she tells me it was an honest mistake and she never earned a single cent as a real estate salesperson. I believe her because I know her and I know her character. Andrea is not a liar.
Calls for her resignation by anonymous bloggers on a political gossip message board are based on a short-lived error of judgment that’s now more than two years old — and had no consequence to the town whatsoever. I believe they are overblown reactions by people who have their own motives for castigating the CDA director. Much of it revolves around EPCAL, and much of it revolves around promoting aviation at EPCAL.
There are two lessons to be learned from this episode, in my opinion. First, having an ethics code that contains stringent disclosure requirements of business relationships for all public officials is absolutely critical. Second, as consumers of information, we all have to be very careful about what masquerades as “fact” — in print, on the airwaves, and most especially in the anonymous haven that is the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
