Bayville Park Busing Resolved?
Due, in part at least, to the discussions on the BayvilleBlog, the Bayville Park Blvd. Civic Association has decided not to pursue their campaign to exclude school buses from the development. I received the following E-mail from one of the residents who has been fighting to allow the buses to enter the development to pick up her daughter and the other students.
Just wanted to let you know that the President of my association gave me a letter to the school district, quoting state village law 6-626 streets by prescription.
It said, "This means the Association has no legal rights to limit who and/or what vehicles can drive on our neighborhood roads. The district can do what ever they feel is to the benefits of the children under their care. We will be adjusting our by-laws accordingly."
Of course the school district said that they have to run it by their lawyer, which will probably take a while.
So, what do you think my chances are for bus service in my association?
Thanks for all your help.
R
I would imagine that with the receipt of this letter, the school district will act very quickly to restore service to this area. Now that the civic association has come to the rightful conclusion that they do not have jurisdiction over the road, the decision lies solely with the school district. The liability that this puts on the district, should one of these children get hurt, should induce them to send the buses in as soon as they can address the logistics and notify the parents of the changes. Not to do so would be a disservice to the community.
Credit should be given to the Bayville Park Blvd. Civic Association and their new president, Roberta. When provided with the necessary information, they did what was right without lawyers and lawsuits, just because it was the right thing to do.
It's amazing how easily issues get resolved when people communicate in an open forum.
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
Excerpt from the Locust Valley Leader Online-
"The answer to resolving the question of whether or not an association has the right to prohibit what vehicles can drive on its roads, appears to have been found. It was not the plethora of lawyers involved in the issue, but the diligence of a concerned parent and the Internet posting of a fellow Bayville resident uncovering a New York State Village Law, which should set the record straight."
Seems Lisa forgot to mention that the internet posting was on the BayvilleBlog! Great job everyone!
Jeff
Reply to this
so nice to know that the school district has a letter from the association. However, when was that letter given to the district, 11/22, what is today's date? When will a decision be made??????????????
Reply to this
so nice to know that the school district has a letter from the association. However, when was that letter given to the district, 11/22, what is today's date? When will a decision be made?????????????? At the expense of what child will the district finally take a stand?
Reply to this
Jeff,
"Seems Lisa forgot..."
No Lisa did not "forget". Just as she withheld the name of the parent, she probably saw no need to give credit to a site that refuses to state who is behind it.
Why do you feel the need to attack her when all she was doing was shedding light on the situation?
Reply to this
The Bayville Park Civic Ass. NEVER had a "campain" against the buses.
Reply to this
maybe you yourself had never held a campaign to not let the buses into the development because you have small children, but fact of the matter is, did you not forget the rude and outrageous accusations that we are lazy parents. Some residents seem to think that they own the road itself and have the right to say that their garbage pick up is more important than the safety of our children. As president of this association maybe you should make the law clear to some of those residents.
Reply to this
Dear Infuriated resident,
In fairness to Roberta, she did step in to an ugly situation and is doing her best to help resolve matters. From what has been written, it appears all of the residents will be properly notified of the new by-laws in January. Nobody likes to be called names. Can't we all just get along?
Reply to this
Barry Lamb said:
"It's amazing how easily issues get resolved when people communicate in an open forum."
While it is true the information you posted in this forum regarding NYS Village Law provided the impetus for the generating of the letter, the issue is not yet resolved.
The ball is still in the school district's court. Hopefully a decision will be forthcoming in the immediate future in favor of the safety of the children.
Reply to this
I have to say that I would be absolutely astounded if the school district did not eventually restore service to the area, and disappointed if it didn't happen right after the Christmas break. I understand there are logistics that need to be addressed, but planning a route and notifying parents shouldn't take until next September.
Barry
Reply to this
Dear Barry,
Technically, it is not a matter of the school district "restoring" service but rather allocating new buses to the area. There never WAS a bus for the MS/HS students and then there is still the parochial school request for a bus to consider.
After all these years, absolutely NOTHING astounds me when it comes to decisions made by this district. But with their repeated talk of caring about the safety of our children, this is the perfect opportunity for the district to show that it can walk the walk and put its money where its mouth is.
Reply to this
it seems to me that mirroring the elementary bus stops in this area is all that needs to be done. as far as the private school bus is concerned, there is a bus that picks those children up on perry ave, they just have to drive into the development.
Reply to this
Probably not just as simple as "driving into the development" in regard to the St. Dominic's bus route. I know the bus makes three stops along Perry Avenue and continues around the creek to make stops on Mountain Avenue as well. I'm sure there is a reasonable answer that would allow the bus to enter the Bayville Park development, but may not be just a simple turn as you suggest. I'm also sure it would adjust the times others are picked up as well as this diversion is sure to add more time to the route. The last thing anyone would want is a speeding bus through those streets to make up for lost time.
Reply to this
schoolmom,
I agree 100%. One would think since the school district will have had the letter for a full month in 4 days, they could have reached a decision by now.
Reply to this
no we don't want speeding buses through the development to make a time frame. small adjustments need to be made. i firmly believe that this is not as difficult a task as the school district would allow you to believe.
Reply to this
any one have any news????? what's the story lvscd? please make a decision and give an answer.
Reply to this
(Also under Bayville Roads)
The application of the "prescription" portion of the statute might not apply. It seems that perhaps we DO require a plethora of attorneys.
==================
Private land may become a public village street by prescription or public use, pursuant to Village Law, ยง6-626, if there has been continuous and uninterrupted public use as a street for 10 years or more,....[ note these additional words in an issued opinion pursuant to the citations...] " and the village has continuously maintained, repaired and, thus, assumed control of the street for the statutory period" (see Jim May Pontiac Buick, Inc. v Gleason, 112 AD2d 618, 492 NYS2d 141; Impastato v Catskill, 55 AD2d 714, 389 NYS2d 152, affd 43 NY2d 888, 403 NYS2d 497; Jakobson v Chestnut Hill, 106 Misc 2d 918, 436 NYS2d 806; Catskill v DeCicco, 2 Misc 2d 942, 147 NYS2d 756; 21 Opns St Comp, 1965, p 450).
========
The fact is that *we* have maintained the street. Should we decide it IS a public road after all, perhaps the Association issued letter which excludes us from being made scapegoats to the school district should also exlude us from the scapegoat status of the scream park, as they also are entitled to the fair usage of a public road... wait, it's private,no.. it's public, no.. it's hmmm....
While I'm merely playing devil's advocate, it is disturbing how the underwhelming minority misappropriates the statute for it's own benefit, while ignoring (better yet trying to get around) the majority's wishes (majority vote from last year) to keep the roads private, quiet, and safer without the additional bus traffic.
While nobody wishes to see schoolchildren (especially!) deprived of a ride to school.. guess what.. they are NOT... it appears simply to be a matter of convenience for the parents not to drive the extra block or two (or heaven forbid that the child should walk .. age allowing).
The issue of busing has been linked to the authority of the Association (or not) to allow buses. This may be a slippery slope if the authority (and financial responsibility) reside with the Village.
Reply to this
Bavillian -
Based on your above post, are you also willing to relinquish garbage pick-up, landcsape vehicles, mail delivery, snow-plowing, and the senior citizen and elementary buses that currently have access to your "private" roads?
Reply to this
It's not a matter of relinquishing, but rather ALLOWING traffic in.. gee... I believe that a majority would approve any/all of that.. additionally, USPS falls into the fedeal arena...the point is the following... if they are PUBLIC.. then ALL the roads in Bayville would be public.. and taxable to all of us for maintenance, etc... good or bad? I don't know.. but I'm sure that these unitended consequences weren't thought through by people casting about to "solve" the busing problem...
Reply to this
Bayvillian -
Oh, so you want to selectively discriminate against one particular bus/service on the basis of.............?
Furthermore, if you feel compelled to complain about this now, I have to ask in all sincerity why you did not attend the Association meeting? You had an opportunity to be heard, or in lieu of a previous engagement you could have submitted something in writing to the Association. You did not. Instead you choose to hide behind your anonymity here on the Bayville Blog and do nothing but cast stones. It appears you are no more than a disgruntled troublemaker who seeks to impede and undo all of the negotations that have brought a resolution to this point. Try doing something constructive instead of tearing down others' diplomatic efforts.
Reply to this
Lisa...
I don't recall stating the I wished to discriminate at all between services. Whether bus service should be expanded or extended is a question for the School District and the District voters to address, as I don't believe that anyone's authoritatively determined if a private non-gated community can prohibit this traffic.
I DID attend the meeting... and contrary to your opinion.. I'm not disgruntled..(expasperated is a better choice). I'm merely pointing out that a can of worms has been opened in suggesting that the roads are public...
in other words, potentially taxable.. and that all the other "private" roads likewise might be in the same status.. making them all taxable by all the citizens.. did anyone consider the fact that if the streets are public, Scream Park attendees might also have access to the roads? (you can't close the roads as was done earlier during the season). I'm simply pointing out that apparently once an opinion was found which coincides with many's desires to support soley the bus issue, maybe we looked no further. Forget about buses for a minute.... do we wish to have our roads declared 'public'? Are we legally allowed to have "public" roads with private financing.. if the Village assumes responsibility, then perhaps we cannot. I hope that I was able to convey my thoughts without using any volatile language which might lead to a silly flame war over a real issue.
I also raised the issue (since you were at the meeting) about privately paying for public works.. if you recall. While hardly an expert, I have doubts as to whether or not we can in fact do so, or this was simply overlooked in the past. Unfortunately, this bus issue is a hot-button topic, and i fear that it was, and is, the sole and overwhelming concern for many people, overlooking what the downstream effects of a 'public' road might mean.
Chris Malinowski (see? no need to hide between neighbors, it wasn't my intention although apparently assumed
Reply to this
Are you kidding me! Walk an extra block or two, matter of convenience! It's pretty obvious to me that you either live close to the bus stop or don't have children. Gee, long winding roads with no street lights, stop signs, lighting, and blind spots like crazy. When it snows the kids are forced to walk more into the traveled way of the road. Yeah, I'm lazy and looking for convenience and my children are deprived. Shame on you. Wake up, because times have changed. More trafic does flow through here. Should i call you lazy because you don't want to bring your garbage to the top of bayville park blvd and then have to carry the empty cans back. Oh, i'm sorry, that's right, garbage trucks are allowed in here. So sad to hear that some people feel that children's safety is less important the the "convenience" of having garbage pick up at their door. Let's face it, if everything else public is allowed into the development but the ms/hs bus, that is descrimination.
As far as the vote from last year is concerned, over seventy houses didn't even vote. Maybe those seventy people don't even care if the buses are here or not.
Reply to this
As a comment to the theme park situation, where was everyone when the town meetings were being held on this issue? You can't complain about it now. I believe that if you had gone to the meetings and realized the size of the area that was being developed you could have asked the big question of parking facilities that would support the amount of people. I also believe that for anyone to put up a business of that size has to be accountable for parking by law. If you have problems with this your mayor is the one to talk to. The guard was only placed their (who was one the scream parks employees) to defer parking for the halloween season because their parking situation was not yet completed. The guard was an employee of the association.
Reply to this
correction, the guard was not an employee of the association.
Reply to this
I would like to add that just because an association does not have the right to deny access to vehicles to drive on its roads, does not mean it has lost the right to place restrictions on parking or hire a private guard. For example, Bayville Park Blvd. has no shoulders on the roadway. If cars were to park in front of private properties along that stretch on both sides of the street, it would impede the flow of traffic and create a dangerous situation. I believe it would be the right of those homeowners to post NO PARKING signs in front of their properties. However, this means NO PARKING for their own guests, as well.
Reply to this