I’m a big fan of the future as set forth by Gene Roddenberry and his successors in Star Trek. For one, race and color have lost much of their steam in the 23rd century, when James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock are (were?) warping throughout the galaxy. Heck, in the latest movie, Kirk—white as they come and from Iowa—has a liaison with a green woman, and Spock—a foreigner—really foreign, as in from another planet—has a relationship with Uhura, who is a splitting image of Beyonnce. And nobody bats an eye. It all begs the question: With race and xenophobia off the table, what do the demagogue politicians find to talk about?

Perhaps more interesting than that development is, come the 23rd century, they’ve already done away with money (we know this from The Voyage Home, an earlier installment in the Star Trek movie franchise). That’s right, there’s no money—kinda like today but different. Roddenberry made a conscious choice to dispense with money; in 2009, many of us simply blew ours in the markets.

Anyway, this is a roundabout way to noting that the future, as it always does, remains some distance away. Here on Earth, the messy business of deciding what to do with our money takes center stage in communities throughout the region, as taxpayers today decide school budgets and board of education races. A summary of our recommendations was published yesterday. You can find our School Election guide on the homepage of LoHud.com. It includes candidate replies to our questionnaire; news articles and commentary; and video of the candidates’ Editorial Board interviews. And not a word on Star Trek.

A reader left a message on my answering machine yesterday complaining (1) that we have no business endorsing in school board races and (2) that we are anti-teacher and anti-union. He also complained that we were denying those with opposing viewpoints an opportunity to be heard. Seriatim, he is wrong, wrong and wrong.

If parents and taxpayers weren’t so busy and actually had time to stay on top of school news and hear the candidates on the sundry issues of the day, there would be little utility for our admittedly cursory reviews of the races; there were nearly 40 contested races this year and the Editorial Board interviewed in all of them. Alas, people are busy, so we step in. Our recommendations, no doubt, are helpful in some cases, less so in others. The reader, as always, decides.

Anti-union and anti-teacher? Of course not. But we are against a school-funding system that has brought us an unsustainable rise in salaries, benefits, pensions, property taxes, etc., etc., etc. That isn’t the teachers or the unions’ fault; they get what they bargain for. But things are different now. For the first time since I’ve been on the Editorial Board, all of our school interviews began with a discussion about money, and sometimes never left that subject.

Additionally, for the first time, just about every interview included some discussion about contracts and bargaining postures—discussion very often prompted by the candidates, incumbents and challengers alike. Five years ago, there was hardly any comment on these matters. Seven years ago, candidates who zeroed in on budgets and taxes were often dismissed as “budget cutters.” Now we call them “school board presidents.” So times have changed. That direction, I think, comes from taxpayers and voters.

The last point, about denying those with opposing viewpoints a say: It just isn’t true. Around election time especially, everyone has something to say. We try to accommodate as many people and viewpoints as space and time permit. This year, we even “shut up” for a few days, so that more readers could be heard. That really is why we’re here—to spur discussion and to accommodate it.

Let’s hope that continues into the 23rd century, in one form or another.

Live long and prosper.

Calorie-posting rules, similar to the regulations Westchester enacted last week, could go statewide if Gov. David Paterson gets his way. (See story here.)

Westchester’s calorie posting rules pertain to chain restaurants with 15 or more locations worldwide. New York City has calorie-labeling rules for restaurants, and Rockland County legislators have been discussing a calorie-posting measure too.

The Editorial Board has supported such measures, while fully acknowledging that legislators in the Lower Hudson Valley have plenty of heavy-lifting to get to. Here’s a chunk of a Sept. 15 editorial when the Westchester Board of Legislators was weighing the issue:

The rationale for such data is well-plowed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported earlier this summer that the number of New Yorkers considered obese ballooned 59 percent over the last decade, to slightly better than 1 in 4 residents. The Empire State is in 19th place on the CDC’s list of states with the largest percentage of obese people. High obesity rates translate into more diabetes and other life-sapping and wallet-draining disabilities.

As for  state legislators who aren’t having much luck this year on the legislative front, this is really low-hanging fruit. Calorie labeling laws seem to be popular — a 2008 survey found 80 percent of New Yorkers are in favor of calorie labeling. And obesity is a serious, and growing, problem — 24.3 percent of New York children are considered overweight, up from just 8 percent in 1980. Now let’s see if legislators will bite.

Let’s let one of the LoHud forum posters have the last word:

How many calories did Paterson burn off coming up with this plan?

FILE PHOTO: Mark Boda, a sanitarian for the Westchester County Dept. of Health, checks the menu board at a McDonald’s restaurant in Port Chester May 12, 2009. Starting today, restaurants have to adhere to a new law mandating that calories are posted on menu boards.

Tomorrow’s school budget and board votes have residents debating whether school officials have presented reasonable budgets that they are willing to support or insulted taxpayers by not cutting tax rates in these hard economic times.

‘Taxpayer fatigue.’ What a churlish phrase. We’re broke. And the schools don’t give a darn about it. They make modest increases and puff out their chests for medals of honor. No one is buying it. Budgets have to be reduced … and they have to stay that way,

wrote one exasperated reader, while another responded:

Taxpayers should realize that in a number of districts, the tax increase for the contingency budget is actually higher than that of the proposed budget. … So read carefully and don’t bite off your nose to spite your face.

One of the biggest taxpayer complaints this year is administrative costs. Here’s what one reader had to say:

The biggest problem I have is that I want to support education in my district. Education — not bloated packages for superintendents and assistant superintendents and all the support staff they carry. … I’m thinking about voting no for the first time.

But mostly residents are saying they are tapped out & can’t afford any tax increases.

School budgets must be cut to reflect the reality of the fall in home values!

wrote one person, while another added:

Schools should try to do more with less over the next five years. It is time to freeze entire budgets … until the housing market and overall economy picks up. Taxes should not be increased this year.

Looking ahead to after the votes, several readers were speculating that voter unrest, which they see at an all-time high this year, could help spur tax reform in Albany.

There needs to be a new set of spending laws adopted in Albany to keep schools in check,

one reader wrote.
And more than a few people said that they are more worried about next year’s budgets:

Does everyone forget the schools are getting boatloads of money from Washington this year? And they still raise taxes. What happens when the federal money soon runs out? And when the inevitable inflation sets in? We’ll be back to double-digit increases and it will be all excused under the heading of ‘mandates,’

cautioned one reader.

Today I facilitated an Editorial Spotlight discussion about starting a regional “Bus Rapid Transit” system along the Interstate-287 corridor through Westchester and Rockland.

Click here to go to Editorial Spotlight, Then click “On Demand” and choose “Editorial Board on Transportation.”

Steven Levy and Maureen Morgan of Federated Conservationists of Westchester County were there to push the concept of a BRT that would provide an east-west link across Rockland and Westchester.  Suzanne Barclay, who is a planner and executive assistant of the Orangetown supervisor, offered a west-of-Hudson perspective. Thomas Madden, commissioner of the Department of Community Development and Conservation, Town of Greenburgh, provided the Westchester angle.

The basic concept: Use the existing bus stock (TZExpress buses, which are quite nice, are suggested) and ramp up service, stretching the runs throughout the corridor with more frequency. Maybe add blue lights so other vehicles would yield the right-of-way to the buses.

BRT is a big piece of the Tappan Zee Bridge/Interstate 287 Project, which plans to build a new bridge, commuter rail through Rockland, across the bridge and into Tarrytown, and a BRT system along the 30-mile corridor from Suffern to Port Chester, which would link all the north-south rail lines. But, that plan isn’t going to materialize until 2017, at the earliest. FCWC believes the need is now, especially with a sinking economy, aging population, and the likelihood that gas prices will again shoot up when the economy finally does turn around.

Who will pay for it? Where, exactly would the buses travel, especially in the tight Route 119 corridor in Westchester? Who will manage it? How does it interplay with the BRT component of the TZ/I-287 Project? Those are just a few of the questions. The BRT idea is just in the concept stage, so there are many more questions than answers. Take a look and see what you think.

Are the stories and databases that The Journal News and LoHud.com are running detailing salaries of municipal employees a public service or a sensational intrusion of privacy? That is the question that readers are debating after the latest town’s salaries, in this case Suffern, were published.

“The JN was wrong to post this. It is really no one’s business how much anyone makes,”

wrote one reader, while another added:

“How embarrassing to have your salary posted. This did not need to be done.”

On the other side of the topic, one reader responded:

“The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill, therefore, they have every right to know.”

Another had this to say:

“This is done as a public service and I commend the Journal News for making it public. You are wrong! People were not aware and that is why you see this reaction. Taxpayers are hopping mad and the politicians better be prepared at the next election.”

As for the compensation — including that of police officers, who have traditionally topped the lists in terms of salaries and overtime — there is also a heated debate about the numbers and who is to blame for what some readers see as overly generous salaries and benefits.

“You can’t keep having municipal workers earning six-figures when your tax base is dropping,”

wrote one commenter.
Readers had a couple of suggestions how to channel all the outrage about the salaries:

“With Suffern being surrounded on three sides by Ramapo, this is a total duplication of effort. It’s a total waste to have two layers of overpaid administrators when the services could so easily be shared and overtime offset,”

one person said, while another offered this:

“If you want to change things about your government locally, you have to get involved and stay persistent and active. It requires dedication and turnout in numbers. The national election is not where real change comes from, it comes from your small, local governments.”

As the proposed legislation supporting same-sex marriage in New York makes it way from the Assembly to the Senate, the debate over marriage equality rages in the Lower Hudson Valley. Here’s the latest story from Albany report Joseph Spector, followed by more than 70 comments so far:

“I am glad to see that our Assembly has passed this bill!”

reads the first, while the next one counters,

“I am sick that our Assembly has passed this bill!”

Same-sex marriage has prompted strong feelings on both sides of the issue, like this comment:

“Marriage is a longstanding cornerstone of our society and the province of couples following the natural laws of our universe. I realize the wordsmiths and locker room lawyers will argue differently, but you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

From the other side of the issue is this sentiment:

“Finally. A step in the right direction! … I support equal rights for everyone!”

However, many readers say they don’t necessarily have an issue with it, especially since they think heterosexuals haven’t exactly held marriage in high standard. One reader wrote:

“I am a Republican and I have no issue with it. … For everyone who says marriage is this sacred thing, why is it that (so many) marriages end in divorce now a days? Doesn’t sound too sacred to me. And something you can do in Vegas for $50 also doesn’t sound too sacred to me.”

Another added:

“if same-sex couples want to enjoy the same benefits of divorce, they want to take that same chance, then all power to them. Going through lawyers, or mediation, figuring out the separation of finances, and family court, custody if there are kids involved. Oh, such fun.”

Some think there needs to be a rethinking of “marriage” to provide for a clearer separation of church ceremonies and legally recognized unions. Many posters agreed with this comment:

“Remove the idea of a legal marriage and re-brand it as a civil union. That way everybody must get a civil union under state law. Then if you want a … religious service, you can go to your spiritual leader and get married under your religious beliefs. Separate the ‘church’ from the state. Equal rights under the law.”

Here’s a letter that didn’t move as fast as the news. Frank Viggiano of New City e-mailed a letter to the editor that called on the Obama administration not to release photos showing alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. The photos were to be released in late May.

Viggiano wrote, in part:

This untimely release of classified documents and photos during a time of war will serve no other purpose than to aid and assist our enemies at home and abroad and further their propoganda campaign. More importantly, regardless of one’s political affiliation or position on the war, this decision will further put our servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq and Afghanistan in danger and affect their morale.

Well, I called and confirmed the letter, and spoke to Mr. Viggiano. But, within a matter of a couple of hours, The Associated Press was reporting that President Obama had changed his mind and decided to oppose the release of such photos. Read about it here.

So, I called Mr. Viggiano back to let him know his letter had, as we say, died on the vine. He was absolutely fine with that. I asked if he was somehow emboldened with his new influence. He joined in the joking, but said no, he just figured it was common sense, and was glad the decision had been made.

Calorie counts have hit menus at restaurants with 15 or more locations in Westchester County, and readers are offering up a mouthful. Similar legislation has been in effect in Manhattan for several months already.

Many think that if the true aim of the legislation is to fight obesity and promote healthier eating, then the requirement should apply to all restaurants. One person wrote:

This is such great legislation, right? Then why isn’t it required in ALL eating establishments, regardless of how many locations they have? And why doesn’t it include fat content and cholesterol, which are just as important (or more so) than just calorie counts?

Others see the new law as just more wasted energy on the part of county lawmakers:

Another law to help those with no common sense. Now the county will run around checking menus for calorie content instead of devoting resources to more serious food-health issues.

Another had this take:

Typical of the Board of Legislators, this well-intentioned legislation only applies to a minority of Westchester’s eating establishments. If the BOL really cared, they would have required this of all eating places.

Ultimately, readers are wondering what long-term impact the legislation might have. Giving the law a thumbs up, one reader wrote:

To the extent that posting this data makes people think about what they eat (and I know it has changed what I order when I’m in Manhattan) it DOES do good.

Another cynically noted:

Because everyone walking around NYC is slim and trim now right?

Finally, one reader put the situation into perspective, saying:

If you eat this food, you’re not eating healthy. PERIOD. Learn what your body needs and feed it well, you’ll be paid back. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. How stupid are we?

And another added:

It’s all about moderating and exercising, people.

Olatunde Roberts of the Bronx eats lunch at McDonald’s in the Westchester Pavillion in White Plains Nov. 26, 2007. Roberts said she might think twice about ordering fast food if she were to see the calorie amount posted.

Photo by Elizabeth Orozco/The Journal News

Today, the Army Times reports that a sergeant has been charged with five counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault in the shooting deaths of four soldiers and a naval officer at Camp Liberty’s Combat Stress Control Center in Iraq.

Two of the victims were doctors; three were enlisted soldiers. The accused, age 44, was on his third Iraq deployment.

The issue of repeated deployments has been addressed by military who worry about the growing suicide rate and high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder seen in returning troops.

Of course, this particular situation has a unique set of circumstances, and the loss is painful. The Army Times article is worth a read to understand what took place — though there is no understanding of the how or why, and maybe never will be.

The physical, neurological, mental and psychic health of those who serve our country is paramount. (Add to this sad situation that those who were helping others, or those who were seeking support themselves, were put in harm’s way.) Our troops are all due the best medical support at all times, during active duty and for the rest of their lives.

As Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Army Times:

It does speak to me for the need for us to redouble our efforts in terms of dealing with the stress [of combat]. It also speaks to the issues of multiple deployments [and] increasing dwell time.

With the recession and the economy dominating the news coverage, it’s easy to forget that some issues continue to grind along just out of the spotlight, popping up now and then for some well-timed debate.

The dispute over new flight plans proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration is one of those. A commited group of municipal officials from New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are fighting the plan that would re-route hundreds of flights over the metropolitan New York area, leading to concerns about noise, health and quality-of-life issues. They recently presented their arguments before a federal appeals court and expect a ruling in a month or so. Reporter Khurram Saeed wrote about the latest wranglings.

Meanwhile, here’s what residents had to say on the subject:

Typical ‘Not in My Backyard’ syndrome. People, you live in the NYC metro area. You live in one of the most densely populated areas of the country. You have more than 5 airports within a 50 mile radius (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark, White Plains, Teterboro, Farmingdale, Morristown and a few smaller ones). In 99.9 pecent of the cases, the airports were there before the people. I am willing to bet that most of you are users of the airports. You, or your municiplalities, do not own the airspace over your communities, sorry. You are not going to won. It is what it is. I live 70 miles north of NYC and get Newark traffic at 2,000 to 3,000 feet all the time, it is what it is.

What happened to the recession? People are crying about job losses and investment losses and they are increasing air travel? It would seem that there would be fewer planes in the sky.

When I was young I spent a good deal of time in East Atlantic Beach, Long Island, which is near the final approach flight path to Kennedy Airport. Therefore I know exactly how loud and intrusive commercial airliners can be. However, those aircraft were on final approach for landing, and were a whole lot lower than a mile overhead. It’s a very different matter when they’re flying overhead at an altitude of one mile. The chances are that people on the ground would hardly notice them.

And how exactly would you have the FAA route the constantly increasing air traffic? If you don’t like the noise and activity in and around the big city, then move to Montana. Big Sky country will let you live miles from your nearest neighbor if you wish, and the closest you’ll get to a plane when it flies over at 35,000 feet.

More detritus from NYC. Let the darn planes stay with their current flight plan.