Oct. 30, 2013:  It is less than a week away. Mark your calendars to vote next Tuesday, November 5. Because of the expected low turnout (there are no presidential, congressional, or state elections), your vote is more likely to make a difference.

In addition to Eastchester town candidates and Westchester Board of Legislators candidates, there are six amendments proposed to the New York State Constitution. 

The following is a list of candidates up for election or reelection and a description of the six proposed amendments to the New York State Constitution.

Candidates Running 

County Legislator 10th District:  Mary Jo Jacobs vs. Sheila Marcotte

Town Supervisor:  Anthony Colavita vs. Michael Denning

Town Council (running unopposed):  Luigi Marcoccia and Frederick Salanitro

Proposed Amendments to State Constitution

Proposed First Amendment:  The proposed first amendment would allow for the expansion of casino gambling in New York. In addition to the five casinos run by Indian tribes and the nine state-run racinos, the proposed amendment would add a maximum of seven full-scale casinos, most located north of Albany. Proponents of the amendment believe that casinos will provide tourism and good jobs and will increase revenue currently lost to Connecticut and New Jersey and that the constitutional provision that limits the growth to seven will curb their proliferation. Opponents argue that expanding casino gambling increases gambling addiction and has harmful effects on the casino communities, including increased crime.

Proposed Second Amendment:  The proposed second amendment would allow veterans who were disabled in combat to get more "points" when competing for jobs within the civil service system. Because it alters the civil service law, the change has to come via a constitutional amendment. Those in favor of the change argue that the amendment would not only increase employment opportunities for disabled veterans, but would also put their training and experience to work for state and local governments. Currently, there is no expressed opposition to this change.

Proposed Third Amendment:  The proposed third amendment would allow local governments to exceed their long-term debt limits if the money is used for sewage improvements. This exemption began in 1963 and has been extended every ten years since. The genesis of the 1963 amendment was to encourage municipalities to participate in a then-new state sewer construction plan without impairing the financing of other needed capital improvements. Since pollution concerns continue as well as the need to constantly maintain and upgrade sewage treatment systems, this amendment appears to be universally non-controversial.

Next Two Proposed Amendments:  The next two amendments (proposed fourth and fifth amendments) address land within the Adirondack Parks and the New York State Constitution via the "forever wild" clause, which forbids the lease, sale, exchange, or taking of forest preserve land without a constitutional change.

The proposed fourth amendment would settle a century-old private-public dispute over 200 parcels near Raquette Lake. Proponents of the amendment believe it will finally settle a long-standing and costly dispute and in the end, in a land trade, will actually add significantly to the Adirondack Preserve. Opponents believe such disputes should be resolved via the judicial system and not a constitutional change, setting a very poor precedent for this type of dispute resolution going forward.

The proposed fifth amendment would authorize a land swap with a private company, NYCO Minerals of Willsboro, to expand its current wollastonite mine (a mineral used in paints, plastics, and auto parts). The current mine has only three to four years of material remaining. In exchange for mining on adjoining property, which would extend company operations by eight to ten years, upon completion the land would be donated back to the state. Proponents argue a "yes" vote would preserve jobs in a very depressed area and eventually leave New York with more preserved park land. Opponents fear that a dangerous precedent would be set as a constitutional revision is undertaken for private gain and not a clear public purpose. They also argue that alternatives on NYCO’s current private property are viable.

Proposed Sixth Amendment:  The final proposed amendment would increase to 80 from 70 the maximum age supreme court justices and appeals court judges could stay on the bench. Proponents believe that the services of experienced, dedicated judges is being lost to a retirement matrix that does not reflect current life expectancies. Opponents argue conversely that the current retirement rule encourages fresh ideas, healthy turnover, and diversity.

Editor's Note:  A special thank you to Mayor Mary Marvin for the write-up on the proposed state constitutional amendments.

Photo by A. Warner