The City Yard and Shari Rackman

Listening to the new Councilwoman of New Rochelle speak about the city’s DPW yard has shed some light on the urgency (can we use the word “perception” here) to move the city yard. It was a brief interview with Bob Marrone on WVOX where Ms Rackman cordially spoke of things in her district and offered her thoughts on the decision that would saddle the city with millions of dollars of debt at a time when we can hardly afford it. Not that we can’t afford it this year alone, we won’t be able to afford it for many years to come.

There was an implication about the safety of the site. In Ms Rackman’s view the yard is not a safe environment for the workers. We can’t allow this condition to put the workers at risk and that is completely understandable. I am at odds however, as to where she draws this conclusion. Having spoken to Alex Turgis, the man who oversees and is in charge of the entire operation, he assured me the yard is “absolutely safe”. In fact, according to Mr Turgis, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), who has the last say regarding workplace safety, gave the city yard an unequivocal passing grade in it’s last inspection. There were no violations cited nor were there any dangerous conditions needing to be addressed. The only issue was an administrative one, where there was a concern about the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) requirements. I was assured this was corrected immediately. Perhaps the concern is over paper cuts which, I’ll admit, can be painful.

To the inexperienced eye, visiting the yard could be an intimidating and confusing experience. It’s not a pretty place but this would be typical of any facility serving the needs of a city. You’re not in Cosi anymore. Big, loud trucks and equipment grind their way in and out all day long as the DPW crew handles the nitty gritty of city business. It may not be the perfect blend of efficiency yet these guys do it all come rain or shine in a facility that works regardless of its appearance. Couple this with the planned lack of upkeep and it’s no wonder the place looks icky – to the inexperienced. By his own admission, Mr Turgis claims the reason for the rundown look is the expectation of one day moving out. What would happen if you decide you’re moving out of your house next year and decide to ignore the basics like cutting the lawn, sweeping your floors and such? You get the picture. This is what’s happened except, as one of the workers at the yard states “we’ve been getting ready to move for 27 years”. So let’s not confuse safety with cutting the lawn. (In his defense, Mr T inherited the mess, he’s been here less than a year.)

I believe it was also stated that the move to Beechwood Ave. is the only option. With all due respect, this just isn’t so. There are always options. Off the bat, another option is to do nothing new and just repair whats needed. Another scenario would be to sell off the Beechwood site (there is a demand for industrial property in the area) and choose another location that would make better sense. In actuality, the old Tuck Tape property right next to the sewage treatment plant could be a consideration. This would make better use of that property as opposed to waiting a decade or so to entice a developer to build housing alongside New Rochelle’s “end product” if you know what I mean. Who would want to have dinner with a view of where their dinner will wind up. The city might take a hit on the property exchange but if we wind up with a proper facility to serve the city for the next 100 years then it makes sense. Beechwood is “less than ideal” as Mr T says. As a matter of fact, when presented with the tuck tape property scenario he said although he hadn’t heard of the option, it sounds “intriguing”. We should get his professional opinion. His professional advice should be considered in locating his facility. Everyone agrees we may never find the perfect site but why invest in a site that proves to be problematic from the outset. Let’s take a look at the true big picture and not be boxed in by a less than prudent choice. In this climate, opportunity is all around us. Construction costs are low as Ms Rackman points out and taking advantage would, at first blush, make sense. The rub lies in the follow up statement that the economy won’t be better for the foreseeable future. Three years or so I believe she stated. Having said that, wouldn’t it make more sense to take pause and recalibrate the needs vs wants equation? After all, as many (including Ms Rackman) have stated Forest City/Echo Bay and the city yard are two different cases and shouldn’t be considered as part and parcel of each other.

The rush to saddle the city with such a large debt needs to be reconsidered. Beechwood Ave is not the only option we have before us, unless the agenda has an underlying motivation. If you look at the facts around the matter you will realize we have a second chance to get it right. You won’t always be afforded this luxury so take advantage while we can. Pull Forest City completely out of the equation, for clarity’s sake, and it becomes apparent that there’s “a better way for Echo Bay”. Like the warning sign at a railroad crossing says, Stop – Look – Listen. Whether it’s a train crossing or Echo Bay the potential for catastrophe is right in front of us if we don’t heed the warning.