|
Case
Closed, Questions Open
Grand
jury decision not to bring charges in Scaringe shooting leaves
friends, family and community members at a loss for answers
Last
week a grand jury decided not to bring charges against the
officers who shot and killed bystander David Scaringe on New
Year’s Eve. The jury did not find that the officers acted
beyond departmental policy, and did not make any policy recommendations.
Officers William Bonanni and Joseph Gerace were pursuing Daniel
Reed for traffic violations. Reed drove onto the sidewalk
at Lark and State streets, and officers opened fire trying
to disable the car when Reed backed toward Gerace. Scaringe
was hit by a ricocheted bullet. [“Death and Disbelief,” Newsfront,
Jan. 8] Reed pleaded not-guilty to nine charges this week.
“These
two officers have gone through an emotional nightmare and
will have that with them for the rest of their lives,” Police
Chief James Turley said. “There’s no happy outcome to the
grand jury, to the initial incident. There’s nothing good
out of this.” But some community members feel that policy
change—particularly those related to use of deadly force and
hot pursuit—or at least increased public input into those
policies could be that positive outcome. It is currently uncertain
if the public will be given a role in police policy review,
or if the department will make its policies available to the
public.
“There’s
a lot of people in the community who are still very upset
about this, and who really have some very significant questions,”
said Dr. Alice Green from the Center for Law and Justice.
“We’ve got to get away from the idea that only police officers
can make policy, without community input.”
Scaringe’s friend, Loralynne Krobetzky, also thinks “the public
has a right to know what those policies are, so that when
we step out of our houses we know what we’re getting into.”
To her, the city’s apparent desire to put the officers back
on the street suggests that “[the shooting] is an OK outcome
from a traffic violation.”
According to Turley, the department is reviewing relevant
policies with District Attorney Paul Clyne and the city’s
corporation counsel. “We don’t believe our policy is flawed,”
Turley said. “I wouldn’t even call it an investigation, into
our policies and the occurrence. . . . It’s a review.” He
also denied that the officers involved risked losing their
jobs, as the Times Union reported an authority indicated.
The Coalition for Accountable Police and Government held a
forum last night (Wednesday) at the Sweet Pilgrim Baptist
Church called “A Community Dialogue About the Controversy
Surrounding the Albany Police Department.” The forum has activists
like Erin O’Brien feeling hopeful that public pressure will
motivate the Common Council “to put pressure on the police
department to be more accountable to the general public.”
The Citizens’ Police Review Board was taken off the Scaringe
case by Mayor Jerry Jennings last month, and for now, the
Scaringe family is left with the option of a civil suit against
the city, which could help provide some answers sought by
the public. The Scaringe family’s attorney, Donald Boyajian,
said they intend to file suit in the next month, though they
have until next year.
“More
people are starting to get involved in this now because I
think people are absolutely shocked by the decision of the
grand jury,” said Krobetzky. “People feel now that justice
hasn’t been served and we are unsafe.” She plans to attend
the Common Council meeting on Monday (May 17) and speak with
other supporters, and hopes to hear that they intend to take
action now that the grand jury investigation is over.
In related news, Common Council Member Michael Brown intends
to introduce legislation that would install video cameras
in the dashboards of police cruisers. Cameras, he said, “don’t
have a bias and they don’t take sides.” Although such installations
can be expensive, Brown thinks cameras would be worth the
investment. If we already had them, he thinks, “maybe we would
know more about what took place on New Year’s Eve when David
Scaringe was shot.”
—Ashley
Hahn
ahahn@metroland.net
Miriam
Axel-Lute contributed to this story.
 |
|
From living room to training zone: firefighters engaged
in hose drills at Halfmoon Beach. Photo by: Joe Putrock
|
Life’s
a Beach in Halfmoon
As
Gail and Gary Krause push ahead with $60 million real-estate
development, former residents of Halfmoon Beach question whether
the plan is viable or even legal
‘Wait,
wait, wait,” the trainer said, interrupting her fellow firefighter’s
backswing. “Do you work with tools and no visor?”
“What?”
the male firefighter said, dropping the two-pronged pickax
to his side.
“Do you
work with tools and no visor?” she admonished again, pointing
to the clear plastic shield on his helmet, which was raised
up, exposing his face. The man nodded, dropped his shield
and went to work bashing a hole through the faux-brick siding.
This was Firefighter Training 101.
This
past Saturday, approximately 60 fire and rescue workers from
more than six Saratoga and Rensselaer county squads took part
in a day of training and practice exercises on the nearly
two dozen recently vacated homes still standing on property
owned by Gail and Gary Krause off Beach Road in the town of
Halfmoon. Throughout the morning, firefighters practiced hose
drills, building-ventilation exercises and search-and-rescue
operations inside houses filled with fake smoke.
“This
is just a fantastic opportunity for us to get some real, hands-on
training exercises right here in our backyard,” said Ed Tremblay,
safety officer with the West Crescent Fire Department, which
took part in the drills.
All told,
the fire crews earned 300 hours of state-mandated OSHA training,
making them the only clear beneficiaries of the months-long
clash between the Krauses—who want to build a $60 million
restaurant-marina-condominium development on their land—and
the nearly 40 homeowners who’ve been displaced in the plan’s
wake [“Some Call It Progress . . . ,” April 1].
In collaboration
with Bast-Hatfield, the Capital Region’s second-largest private
construction firm, the Krauses, who own a popular restaurant
and clam-steam pavilion on Halfmoon Beach, cooked up the development
proposal last year. The Krauses have applied for dredging
permits with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and petitioned
the New York State Canal Corp. to purchase 10 acres of land
contiguous to the property they own. They expect the plan
to be completed in five phases over the next two to five years.
That
such a development was being planned on the land these families
occupied—in some cases for more than 40 years—came as an unwelcome
surprise to most of the Krauses’ tenants. Residents began
speaking out against the development at town meetings and
to the press, filling angry letters with state agencies and
petitions stating their opposition with the town clerk. Soon
thereafter, tenants claim, the Krauses began issuing eviction
notices.
“These
were retaliatory evictions,” said Carolyn Snyder Lemmon, an
Albany attorney who is representing eight of the Krauses’
tenants who filed a lawsuit in Saratoga County Supreme Court
on May 3. The tenants claim that the Krauses committed fraud
by failing to disclose their development plans at the same
time that the they were signing building permits allowing
residents to add on to their houses. The suit seeks unspecified
damages and injunctive relief from the evictions, Lemmon said.
“These
people have put a lot of money into these homes and they were
operating under the assumption that things were not going
to change in the near future,” she said. “My objective is
to get these people what they deserve in terms of damages
and relief from these retaliatory evictions.”
When
reached for comment Wednesday morning, Gary Krause deferred
to his attorney, Harold Gordon, who said that the lawsuit
was “meritless and borderline frivolous.” A preliminary hearing
on the case will take place today [May 13] in Saratoga County
Supreme Court. Krause’s only comment was that the plan is
“alive and well,” an assessment that comes as a surprise to
former tenants who point to waste leaking into the Mohawk
River from the nearby Tow Path Road Landfill.
Residents
are concerned that the iridescent flow leaking from the site,
which is listed on the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s
Superfund registry, into the Mohawk could pose a serious environmental
risk when the river is dredged for the development. The Krauses
have dismissed this claim in other media outlets, saying it
is a last-ditch effort by the tenants to foil their development
plans. But environmental advocates and town officials share
the residents’ concerns.
“I think
that the town, or whoever is building this, should protect
themselves from future liability by doing some testing [and
offering] full disclosure for anyone who is going to purchase
these homes,” said Kathy Curtis, executive director of the
Citizens’ Environmental Coalition. “Once those homes are built
and people are living there, it becomes much more difficult
for them to get any kind of justice. These people have a right
to know.”
Halfmoon’s
DeCerce said he has seen whatever is leaking from the former
dump site, but since the DEC has classified the site as posing
no significant threat to human life—meaning that no cleanup
is required—the town’s hands are tied. Still, the DEC’s assessment
doesn’t settle well with DeCerce. “If I thought that the water
was contaminated from all the stuff that people are saying,
I tell ya, I wouldn’t want to live there,” he said.
Another
unanswered question linked to the Krauses’ plan is what will
happen to the three families living on land they rent from
the Canal Corp. The Krauses have petitioned Canal Corp. to
purchase the land, and the tenants have been issued notices
that their leases are valid through Dec. 31, 2004, after which
point they may be asked to leave.
The tenants
have placed phone calls and sent letters to Canal Corp. asking
why they were not given the opportunity to purchase the land
they lived on, but say they haven’t received any response.
Metroland placed multiple phone calls to Canal Corp.
spokesman Dan Gilbert, but none was returned prior to publication.
—Travis
Durfee
tdurfee@metroland.net
 |
Zoned
Out?
As
the expiration date looms for one of New York’s economic revitalization
programs, legislators and advocates debate its merits, flaws
and failures
New
York’s Empire Zone program was dealt a series of blows in
recent months, as several prominent state officials added
their names to the growing list of parties concerned with
the program’s administration. As a July 31 deadline for the
review and renewal of the program approaches, advocacy groups
and elected officials alike have introduced recommendations
for reforming the state’s controversial economic development
program.
At first glance, the Empire Zone program, created by the state
Legislature in 1986 and administered by the Department of
Economic Development, would seem to be a fundamentally sound
concept. By offering financial incentives to businesses willing
to set up shop in economically depressed areas of New York
state, the architects of the program intended to provide an
impetus for economic upswing in the areas where it was most
needed.
However, while supporters of the program describe a wealth
of jobs and revenue generated by Empire Zone businesses, critics
contend that the program is far from the boon its supporters
portray. In fact, recent reports indicate that the program
has become a double-disservice to New Yorkers: operating as
both a taxpayer-funded tool for political favor and a chief
contributor to urban sprawl.
In March, the office of State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi issued
a highly critical report on the program. While Hevesi’s report
indicated that the program was not without its success stories,
the majority of the report described a history of poor oversight
and accountability in the program’s administration. Even after
several poor evaluations in the program’s early years and
subsequent assurances of reform, the report concluded that
“many of the weaknesses cited in [a previous 1996 audit of
the program] continue to exist.”
Among the numerous flaws detailed in Hevesi’s report was a
loophole in the program that allowed businesses to receive
Empire Zone benefits by reincorporating under a new name and
declaring all of their employees’ positions as newly created
jobs. While that loophole was eventually closed to future
exploitation, businesses that reincorporated prior to the
reform continue to receive Empire Zone benefits.
In April, during a hearing before representatives of the state
Assembly, DED chairman Charles Gargano defended the benefits
accorded to reincorporated businesses, claiming that the sustained
employment of the businesses, as well as their potential for
growth, justified inclusion in the program. When presented
with data suggesting that many current Empire Zone businesses
failed to provide as many jobs as they had promised during
the application process, Gargano responded, “A company’s projections
are not the basis for awarding tax credits. Only actual performance
is rewarded.”
Gargano described this apparent contradiction as a “gray area”
in Empire Zone tax law.
Hevesi’s report also described an additional consequence of
the reincorporation loophole. Due to the large number of “new”
jobs declared during the loophole’s existence, the actual
number of jobs created by the Empire Zones program remains
questionable.
In the final evaluation of the program, Hevesi’s report indicated
that many companies benefiting from Empire Zone designation
neither created jobs nor generated revenue for the regions
they were located in. Additionally, lax enforcement of the
program’s reporting requirements prevented the DED or Zone
businesses from being held accountable for their role in the
program.
According to the report’s analysis of the Empire Zone program’s
cost-effectiveness, “DED does not perform cost/benefit analyses
of the program, zones or businesses to determine if their
achievements in creating new jobs and making investments are
commensurate with the State and local tax credits and utility
discounts provided under the program.”
A recommendation for increased reporting was featured among
the reforms presented by a coalition of nonprofit organizations
on the day of Gargano’s testimony before the Assembly. The
10-point plan introduced by representatives of such groups
as the Fiscal Policy Institute and the Hunger Action Network
was aimed at bringing the program closer to its original intent—as
a “jump-start” for the neediest areas of the state. Among
the other reforms were public hearings on potential Empire
Zone businesses, decertification of companies that fail to
have a positive effect upon their regions, and a shift away
from the current boundary-amendment process. According to
the groups, the ability to amend Empire Zone boundaries has
resulted in a “We bring the zone to you” approach, which opens
up the process to favoritism and corruption.
In March, an investigation conducted by Assemblyman Richard
L. Brodsky (D-Westchester), chairman of the Assembly’s committee
on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, indicated a
direct relationship between Empire Zone designation and political
lobbying in Monroe County. According to the report, $279,000
was donated to political committees—in this case, Republican
party affiliates—by groups benefiting from amendments to the
county’s Empire Zones from mid-2001 through 2003. Among the
properties that began receiving credit for various state and
local taxes as part of the program were 25 vacant buildings.
“There
is strong evidence that political contributions were related
to the Empire Zone amendment process,” Brodsky’s report alleged.
“The approval of these applications by the Commissioner of
Economic Development was at best unwise and inappropriate,
and at worst a violation of the law.”
Last month, Albany environmental-technology firm Rupprecht
and Patashnick Co. Inc. was given the green light by the city’s
Common Council—a prerequisite for companies wishing to move
between Zones—to move its more than 100 employees, facilities
and subsequent revenue to the nearby Rensselaer County Empire
Zone. After Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s (D-Manhattan)
own Chinatown district was shunned for Zone designation in
favor of Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno’s (R-Brunswick)
Rensselaer County, Silver (D-Manhattan) became one of the
program’s most severe critics, referring to the placement
of Zones as “scatter-gun.”
While the future of well-established Empire Zone businesses
such as Rupprecht and Patashnick is relatively secure, some
companies planning to set up shop locally have had to keep
an eye on the clock. The development of an Empire Zone on
the site of the Luther Forest Technology Campus, a $10 billion
development planned for the Malta-Stillwater area, hinges
upon whether the local Economic Development Council is able
to garner the approval of the town’s governing body. However,
the plan faces stiff competition from grass-roots anti-sprawl
groups opposed to rezoning more than 1,300 acres of undeveloped
land for the project. Although officials are expected to vote
on the project in a matter of months, the question remains:
Will the Empire Zone program still be around to pay for it?
—Rick
Marshall
Questions
That Bother Us So
Why
are so many municipal Web sites sorely out of date, and who’s
responsible for fixing them?
Back
in the dark ages before Googling was a verb, phones and footwork
were the way to get information. But today, Web hunting for
basic information is practically a knee-jerk reaction for
most folks with a computer, and municipal Web sites have become
essential tools for reaching the public. But what happens
when local government Web sites are inaccurate or dated, and
how are they maintained?
Take
the city of Albany’s site. Amid much that is useful, www.albanyny.org
is peppered with unclear and incorrect information. City officials
incorrectly identified on the site include Michael Brown (still
listed as Common Council President Pro Tempore), James Turley
(current police chief, though still listed as deputy to former
Chief Robert Wolfgang), and Christian D’Alessandro (still
listed as commander).
Common
Council minutes haven’t been posted since March 15 (it should
be noted that the minutes site is handled by a separate company
than the one that handles the rest of the city’s site.) Furthermore,
the Common Council meeting schedule is from last year (though
the year is not labeled, which frequently causes confusion)
and the only way to find it is to follow the link that reads
“For a listing of the Common Council Membership, click here.”
Citizens who recently organized a rally at City Hall to show
their continued outrage about the shooting of David Scaringe
held it on a night they thought the Common Council was meeting.
They got the date from the Web site [“Here’s Your Outcry,”
Newsfront, April 29].
Joe Rabito,
executive assistant to the mayor, is in charge of the city’s
Web content and is aware that Albany’s has incorrect information
posted. Because the city contracts out its Web work, Rabito
said updates won’t be made because major changes are in the
works. Albany intends to relaunch a redesigned and updated
site at some point soon, which Rabito said will be “more user-friendly
and more accessible and [have] more information as well.”
He wants to see as many public documents and forms on the
site as possible. Sounds wise.
When
Harry Tutunjian became Troy’s mayor in January, Web accessibility
was a priority of his, and the city’s recently revamped site
(www.troyny.org) is certainly an improvement. Now it features
a weekly message from the mayor, the sex-offender registry,
calendars, maps, and extensive lists of community links and
city services. Mayor Tutunjian said he’s also getting the
word out about the site by putting the Web address on all
of the city vehicles. He noted that the site is a “welcoming
package to new and potential residents.” Until recently, however,
if you searched “City of Troy” on major engines, it was not
immediately listed, so don’t be surprised if you missed it
before.
—Ashley
Hahn
ahahn@metroland.net
|
|
Sowing
the Seeds of Labor Equality
|
 |
|
Photo by: Shannon DeCelle
|
Hundreds
of farm laborers and their supporters gathered
at the Capitol in Albany earlier this week, the
culmination of an 11-day, 200-mile march across
the state calling for legislation that would provide
farm workers the same labor rights shared by the
rest of the New York’s employees. The goal of
the march and rally, an annual push that is supported
by more than 200 labor and religious groups, is
the passage of the Farm Workers Fair Labor Practices
Act. The omnibus legislation, sponsored by majority-party
members in both the Republican-controlled Senate
and the Democratic-led Assembly, would provide
farm workers with the basic labor rights enjoyed
by most other workers throughout the state, such
as the ability to enter into collective bargaining
agreements, earn overtime pay for working more
than eight hours a day, and receive workers compensation
benefits. The annual march has resulted in token
changes to the state’s farm-labor law over the
past few years, like the right to a day of rest
and a mandate that bathrooms and clean drinking
water be provided at the work site. As of deadline
Wednesday, the bill had not been passed.
|
|
|
|
Columns
& Opinions
