White Plains CitizeNetReporter - Reader Calls for Council to Examine Issues Openly Before Their Minds Are Made Up

WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. August 2, 2005: Don Hughes provides thoughtful comment and asks why the Common Council doesn't ask for more public comment on important policy issues before it makes up its mind:

It's not just about plastic pipe

On Monday the Common Council held a public hearing on an ordinance updating the White Plains Supplemental Uniform Building and Fire Prevention Code. Changes to the White Plains code became more of an issue when the revised New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code became effective January 1, 2003. The revised code replaced a code adopted in 1984 which the White Plains code references. Much of the ordinance simply renamed and renumbered sections to bring them into conformance with the new state code. However, many sections where simply deleted. This allows the more lenient state requirements to apply. One of the deletions was the prohibition on using plastic pipe.

Although this code revision has been under way under the supervision of Building Commissioner Michael Gismondi for some time, the first the general public became aware of the changes was just prior to the July council meeting. Despite the short notice, there was a significant amount of public comment, and the council adjourned the hearing until August to allow for additional input. The August meeting was standing room only, and accommodating all of the speakers keep the council in session past Midnight.

As expressed by council president Tom Roach, one of the intents of the changes was to cut the costs of renovating one- and two- family homes which make up the majority of the building permits issued by the city. As a compromise, Mr. Roach offered an amendment to limit the use of plastic pipe to buildings of less than 7 stories. Supposedly this will allow the homeowner additional choices while protecting the high-rise tenant who has less control over design choices. However, it ignores the comments made by several speakers who indicated that it is the use, not the height of the building that is more crucial in making design choices. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to restrict plastic pipe from buildings with public spaces; or just single-family detached houses. Unquestionably, there should be an opportunity for some public dialog on this issue.

Personally, I agree with councilman Arnold Bernstein when he said that government regulation should avoid intruding on personal decisions as much as possible. He indicated that as long as government guarantees that accurate information is available, individuals should be able to make decisions balancing cost, durability, and perceived safety. I would have gone even further, allowing homeowners (as is common in other localities) to do more of their own work, provided it passes any mandated inspections. This simply acknowledges that not all of the thousands of customers of Home Depot buying wire and pipe are licensed contractors; and at least gives the city an opportunity to insure that the work is done safely.

In a summation the council uniformly lamented the focus on plastic pipe saying that ‘this is about more than just plastic pipe’. Truly. I think that it once again demonstrated the need for involving the public much earlier in the process.

As a counterpoint I would like to mention how the matter of an application by the Westchester Hills Golf Club to demolish and rebuild a maintenance facility on its property. This issue also came before the council in July where a couple of neighbors who – while supporting the golf club – had some concerns about the project. The council delayed acting on the resolution and directed the golf club to actively reach out to the surrounding neighbors and go over the plan, on site, and in detail, and work with them to address their concerns. This was in addition to the meetings and notifications that Westchester Hills had already conducted to discharge their legal requirements. In August, the golf club reported that they had contacted additional neighbors, anyone who made comments in July, as well as anyone who had otherwise expressed interest (including the council). They reported that all issues had been resolved to the satisfaction of both the neighbors and Westchester Hills – including several long-standing issues unrelated to the new maintenance facility.

The council was obviously pleased that their shepherding had produced satisfactory results. But shouldn’t the same public involvement be put into requiring sprinklers in single- and two- family homes (a requirement dropped at the last moment), or allowing plastic pipe, as goes into the number of evergreens screening a private maintenance facility? Maybe the council should take some of their own advice and actively involve the public in the early discussions. Council meeting public hearings are not an effective forum for providing input. The speakers are, of necessity, time limited. They are not able to respond to the following speakers or comments by the council (‘We are not here to debate you.’ being a common comment from the Mayor). There is no give-and-take, no dialog. But most importantly, by the time the resolution is on the agenda, the council has most likely already decided how they are going to vote.

Overheard from the audience as the council was thanking three state employees who had traveled to White Plains to provide information in support of the code changes: ‘What about me? I traveled here from Texas.’ Hmm.

Don Hughes


Create an account		The White Plains Daily Internet Newspaper...Founded 2000 A.D....


			Designed and hosted by WestchesterInternet.com