No chance. Needs to ave accomplished something. View Comment

Not a fan of banning as broadly as stated. Huge difference between a McD and Cosi type sandwich shop. Also, huge difference between Bronxville and Eastchester --- ride down rt 22. Nothing quaint about it unless you think Value Drugs, Walgreens, CVS, a tire shop, and a bunch of gas stations and supermarkets are quaint! Personally, I don't eat fast food but I wouldn't want to own real estate where my options to generate income were so limited. View Comment

NY is again at the forefront of reason. This needs to be the law in all 50 States for it to have better effectiveness. Very good move. View Comment

Utterly laughable. Don't just read what's printed here ....go to the map and see how useful it is for finding anything other than a single house at a time. After you've done that you will ask yourself "have any of these cops did likewise or are the just reading the script that the NRA handed them" View Comment

Mitt has nothing to offer Eastchester voters. Face it, your not rich enough to benefit from his economic 'plan', dumb enough to benefit from his social 'plan' or gullible enought to benefit from his small government 'Plan'. So what do you like about this guy? View Comment

They got it right as evidenced by Justice Roberts surprising Conservative mouthpieces who thought he would go against sound legal judgement . Anyone hiding behind the argument for small government is missing the basis for the decision. And to 'fake quote' Reagan -- who wouldn't even survive a mild VP candidate vetting these days -- is beyond illogical. Reagan was for big government and big government spending-- it was just all on the military and related industries. Universal health Care is something that Presidents in both parties have fought to obtain since the early 1900's. This President got it done at least to a large extent. After his 2012 win perhaps they can focus on a single payer system. View Comment

What does the the zoning board's law say about profitability? I'm not an economist but there are only 2 kinds of restaurants I know of -- those that make money and can pay their rent and employees and those that can't. When I look at the empty storefronts and some of the establishments that have gone under I think I would prefer the former rather than the latter. You need to have consistent guidelines (size, hours of operation, noise, congestion, etc) to apply fairly across applicants. By using dated language to pigeon-hole a business you will always be behind the curve and trying to interpret the meaning and intent of the law. And speaking of intent, what is the intent of restricting so called fast-food establishments? What are types of establishments that take their money out of the community and run without giving anything back? What are they required to give back? Are all the other types giving back, how much -- is that enough? View Comment

Speaking as parent (who just happens to be a school board trustee) I was surprised how much money we spend to bus our kids out of district to private schools. In fact, up until a few years ago I didn't even know that we were required to provide this transportation and I am convinced that many taxpayers are still unaware of this State mandate. In researching the origins of this bazaar mandate I was surprised to learn how this legislation emanated out of the late 1940s (7 decades ago!) when Cardinal Spellman and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt were among the public combatants on opposite sides of this debate. The stakes were very different then. In fact the Catholic’s outrage was against federal funding to public schools – they argued “why should the federal government give public schools money for health services (e.g. vaccinations), transportation, and school lunch programs at the exclusion of Catholic schools?” Rather than argue the unwinnable point against separation of church and state, Spellman and others tried to make their argument about the children -- that providing public funds to public school children alone would mean discriminating against Catholic and parochial school children (Protestants took a decidedly different point of view and believed the separation of church and state should remain concrete). These arguments were flawed then and they are flawed now -- only gathering support by politicians who wish to pander to the sensitivities (and political donations) of various religious groups. By requiring districts taxpayers to be forced to pay for out-of-district transportation -- whether to a Catholic or non-secular private school -- amounts to subsidizing a non-public institution with tax dollars that should be allocated within the district. There is absolutely no infringement or limitation being placed upon the individuals who want to exercise their right to educate their children wherever they see fit -- there is simply a limitation of how payment for that right is extracted. When proponents of this transportation subsidy/welfare are not persuaded by logical, principled arguments they will counter with the premise that educating their children outside of the district saves the district money. This flawed argument assumes (1) there is an absolute incremental cost for each student when in reality the dynamic of adding an additional student to a class may be relatively negligible and less than the out-of-district transportation costs. (2) The calculus of providing common public benefits does not entitle you to a 'rebate'. I do not petition my town for a proportion of my taxes back because I have not used their police, fire or ambulance services this year. When I make the choice to drive to work I do not seek a percentage of public transportation dollars back either. It is ironic that this meeting took place at a Catholic HS named after JFK. For it was Kennedy, a Catholic, who lost the support of Cardinal Spellman when he backed Nixon in the 1960 election because of Kennedy's opposition to providing federal aid to parochial schools -- aid that was to include transportation. JFK: 'I believe in an America where the Separation of Church and State is absolute'. Regardless of how much that may make certain people want to throw up on their sweater vests it is an enduring principle of our Democracy that cannot and should not be compromised by opportunistic politicians in search of a few votes and a few dollars. View Comment