The title of the article is misleading, since the only part of Mamaroneck included in the listing is Larchmont Manor, which is only one part of Larchmont Village and not an area typical of the entire Town of Mamaroneck. Furthermore, there are parts of Larchmont Manor that are far wealthier than other parts of Larchmont Manor, even though Larchmont Manor is only about 1/2 of 1 square mile in size. View Comment
Isn't the key to ending this finding a way to get our state legislature to refuse to pass any new mandates that the state does not fully fund, and to get to work on reducing, or paying for, those that already exist?
It's easy to decide that something should be done, and then to stick someone else with the bill.
Time for all of that to stop.
The state legislature keeps pushing state constitutional amendments. How about adopting, and pushing, one that does this? View Comment
Having lived in Larchmont since 1972, and having raised three great, well-educated children here, my wife and I cannot disagree with that characterization of our community in the slightest, but, having sold our house and moved to a Larchmont apartment a year ago, we can also confirm that Larchmont remains an ideal place to live even after one has finished raising a family. View Comment
What happened at the public hearing in Larchmont Village last night?
What action is the Town of Mamaroneck taking to achieve the same results?
Next would be in City of New Rochelle, where huge supermarkets give out thousands of such bags every day. View Comment
Publishing a list of people with guns in effect also publishes a list of people who probably have no guns, meaning everyone not on the list of people with guns. It thus puts those without guns at greater risk. In my opinion that is why the list of people with guns should be taken down and why it never should have been published in the first place. View Comment
If the Town had MAILED the survey to all Town (including Village) residents the response might have been appreciably larger, and the results appreciably more accurate.
My survey was in my spam folder--I just happened to see it.
It's like the invitations to the Town's 350th birthday party, which the Town did not mail to its residents, so that many if not most Town residents had no idea that it was to occur.
If the Town really cares that substantially all of its residents receive what it wants them to receive, use mail, not email.
The concept is good, but yet we see, very clearly, through car windows, almost daily, drivers, often adults, not just teenagers, talking on hand-held phones, or using other handheld devices, as they drive around (or make illegal U-turns on the streets of) Larchmont/Mamaroneck, endangering all of us, not just themselves and, often, the children in the car/van/SUV with them. I have yet to see one of them stopped, much less ticketed, by one of our police officers. Unless that happens what Janet says she is doing will accomplish little. View Comment
As to the revaluation, those homeowners who do not want the reassessment people in their homes, or even to set foot on their property, are reminded of the need to contact GAR Associates (call the Town if you need their contact info.) to tell GAR to stay away.
On January 6th the Town mailed homeowners an update letter about reassessment. It notes that people who did not attend the GAR-run workshops could see them re-broadcast on local cable TV, but only until January 6th. January 6th, however, is the day the letters were mailed to area homeowners. This is, unfortunately, rather typical of the way the reassessment process is being handled.
In addition, the letters also attempted to respond to criticism of the way reassessment is being handled--not of the need for reassessment--which has appeared in other area publications. Unfortunately, however, once again some of the information in the letters was inaccurate. View Comment