Letters to the Editor
January 25, 2008
Letter to the Editor: Proposed Schedule Change at Greeley
Principal Selesnick’s refuses to reevaluate or delay amid widespread concern
By Don Curry
Letter to the Editor: Reader’s Digest Proposed Development
Don’t let Summit Greenfield treat our town as merely an investment opportunity
By Betty and Leonard Weitz
__________________________________________
To the Editor:
The recent January 14 PTA session with Greeley principal Andrew Selesnick was very disappointing, both for what was said and what was not, about the plan to change to block scheduling in 2008.
In the face of widespread concern expressed by parents about the plan, and an apparent split among teachers on the issue, Mr. Selesnick flatly
rejected a request to reevaluate the decision after a suggested open forum that would permit parents, teachers and students the opportunity to air their concerns and find out the bases on which the scheduling change is being made.
Mr. Selesnick also rejected a request that the change be delayed in order to allow the community to learn more about the plan and its bases. Mr. Selesnick maintained that the change has been in the works for years, but the fact remains that it is only recently that details about the plan have reached many in the community who will be most affected by it.
Selesnick dismisses negative studies as irrelevant and “hopes” for unquantifiable gains
Members of the audience questioned Mr. Selesnick about the fact that there is no clear evidence that block scheduling will improve student
performance. In fact, although some studies tend to show some benefit to block scheduling, an equal number of studies show the opposite: for
example, that AP examination scores dropped, and standardized test scores dropped significantly, after implementing block scheduling, and that traditionally scheduled students performed better in all four core areas—English, Math, Science and Social Studies—than block scheduled students.
The response from Mr. Selesnick and the school superintendent was to dismiss the negative studies as essentially irrelevant. Instead, they are
“hoping” that block scheduling will show a benefit in the quality of the questions that students pose in class, which of course is virtually
incapable of being measured.
What was not said at the meeting was equally troubling. No satisfactory answer was provided to the question why Greeley is making a fundamental change to a system that has worked extremely well over the years, is plainly not “broken” and doesn’t need to be fixed. And the factual bases on which the plan rests remain entirely unclear.
Don Curry
___________________________________________________________
Editors:
Plaudits to you all, the founders and editors of our first community newspaper! Thank you for a forum that encourages participation and community spirit. Your achievement is phenomenal.
Here are some comments that we have sent to the town board regarding Summit Greenfield’s application for rezoning the Reader’s Digest property.
To Town Board Members:
We vigorously oppose Summit Greenfield’s (S/G) application for the rezoning of the former Reader’s Digest property. S/G bought the property with full disclosure of the zoning requirements. Their treatment of our community purely as an investment opportunity, with the chief aim to maximize profits regardless of the cost to the community, means that they have no concern for the quality of life for the residents of this town that so many call home.
We are not the NYSE. The vast increase of traffic density, which they admit will occur but for which they have no solution, disqualifies this development from being viable. The demands on an infrastructure unsuited to meet the needs of additional fire protection, police, schools, etc., reveal the reckless nature of S/G’s development proposal. Their aims are at cross-purposes with those of the community. Those who reside here bought their homes with the reasonable expectation of living in an environment hospitable to family life. The town board has an obligation to protect the residents of this community against opportunists who come to town for the sole purpose of realizing a financial bonanza. In addition, just because “conditions change,” the town has no obligation to protect investors against the vagaries of the marketplace.
Summit Greenfield has no regard for the well-being of our town
The firm, S/G, has the singular intention to use Chappaqua solely as an investment opportunity, strictly for profit, with no regard for the well-being of our town. If profit is the sole motive, then any homeowner should be able to petition for the equal opportunity to rezone their property to build additional houses on single-family zoned properties, but that is not the purpose for which people moved here. Their reason for moving here is to educate their children in an environment conducive to family life. They move to Chappaqua to be residents and citizens of a community, not part of a business venture. Chappaqua cannot be treated simply as an investment opportunity for any aggressive and greedy corporate entity that is out to make a substantial profit with no concern for the havoc they wreak on the lives of the residents who call this town their home. Every presentation they have made reveals Summit Greenfield’s callous disregard for this community.
Do not change the Master Plan
It is imperative that we do not change the Master Plan. To do so would be to lower the legal threshold and to leave us far more vulnerable. One of S/G’s objectives is to pare away our legal protections until they achieve their purpose. The Master Plan, as it is presently crafted, is a crucial instrument effectively fashioned to maintain the essential character of the town.
Most residents of this town believe that there should be a limit to the number of applications that S/G is allowed since these last two applications are essentially the same. Under the guise of changes of, for example, supposedly fewer residential units, which they have no intention of honoring (they claim the right to double the number to 556), they present a bogus “new” application. It is obvious that their disregard for the expense to the town and the misuse of the time of the town board members must call for a limit to the number of times they can apply for the rezoning of the same development property.
The town board should not be intimidated by any implied threat of legal action by S/G. If S/G were to institute a lawsuit when their application is denied, the town board will find that it has the full support of the community in meeting its legal obligation to protect the community.
We thank the town board members for their dedicated service to the community.
Betty and Leonard Weitz
Click here for a printable view of this article.
Click here to read more Letters to the Editor articles.Click here to send a copy of this article via email.
We're interested in your opinion. Click here to submit a comment on this article, or any other.
