Supervisor Feiner: November: Miscellaneous

Thursday, November 30, 2006

November: Miscellaneous

The purpose of this Miscellaneous topic is to discuss any town related issues you feel are important. Please post any issues you wish to discuss in the comments section of this post. Thanks!

313 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 313 of 313 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: I don't care if you play tennis. I do care which budget the expenses are in.

If my wishes are of no concern to you, then your wishes are no concern of mine.; 11/20/2006 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear anon at 9:52,

and what is the point of stating that some of the tennis players are from the villages:

1. To rub it in that they are using facilities that they are not paying for?

2. To re-emphasize to Feiner that the majority of the votes come from the villages and so the bubble should get built?

Stop blaming Bernstein. Go ask the Village officials why they would not participate in mediation. To me the answer is obvious, they have no intention of charging costs per NYS law. Instead they will rack up legal costs and delay projects.; 11/20/2006 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Bernstein is not to blame. According to the legal briefs I read on the Grassroots for Greenburgh website, the villages are saying that the town is required under the Finneran Law to keep its parks restricted in use to unincorporated area residents. The company that wants to install the tennis bubble knows it can't do business with Greenburgh if the villages are right and the town's tennis courts must be restricted in use to unincorporated area residents. The town is supporting the villages on this issue, so why blame Bernstein? All he says is that if the tennis courts are open town-wide, then the costs should be charged town-wide, and if the tennis bubble turns out to be the money-maker it is supposed to be, the costs to village taxpayers will be zero.; 11/20/2006 11:14 AM
Anonymous said...: I can only guess is that the villages are concerned that the more usage of any park, even if not a cash drain, by the villages will make them more vulnerable to courts saying that the town has been misusing Finnerman law; 11/20/2006 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon at 11:14,

I think the villages are afraid that any additional village use of parks makes them more vulnerable to be charged for all parks, not just the tennis one.; 11/20/2006 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: To answer to anonymous at 10:10 A.M.

You and your buddies all use the same talking points, just like the Republicans all use Karl Rove's talking points, and they are about as accurate as Karl Rove's talking points. And we know who your Karl Rove is; 11/20/2006 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I know that some people who use this blog like to knock Paul Feiner and find faults with everything he does. I was at Town Hall today with a problem. I met with our Supervisor and within an hour after I arrived home the problem was solved. Everyone who I spoke to at Town Hall was as courteous as can be. The employees were helpful and friendly. I cannot understand why some people have to find fault with everything. Our town government, our Supervisor work hard. Our services are outstanding. I wish my plumber and handiman were as reliable as town officials are.; 11/20/2006 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: So, do I call Feiner to get my kid a trip to Japan?; 11/20/2006 7:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Sounds to me like the NYS laws are a mess regarding this old fashioned town/village arrangement we have. Why can't each be its own entity like in other US states, and those municipalities that choose to collaborate (services, systems, whatever) do so. It's nutty that the state holds on to this antiquated structure. All it seems to do is create problems.; 11/20/2006 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I dont know if NYS has these problems, I havent heard them in Eastchester, MManeck, etc, at least not to this degree. The problem is when people like Fiener play games..; 11/20/2006 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I have some friends who moved into Greenburgh because they heard about Paul Feiner's accessibility and innovations. I like living here because Paul listens and is responsive.; 11/20/2006 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Kudo's to Mr. Paul Feiner for helping tenants at Manhattan Ave and for preventing big tax breaks for building owner; 11/21/2006 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Where's my tennis bubble?; 11/21/2006 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Tennis Bubble Advocate,

I am sorry to tell you this, but until the A/B budget for parks is resolved, there will be no bubble.; 11/21/2006 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: And if we ever did get a tennis bubble, I dont see why we cant have a driving range bubble on the parking lot, like they used to have at Saxon Woods, and a driving range during good weather, as there will soon be no driving ranges left in our area.; 11/21/2006 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like Central Ave. will be getting a 7-11.

http://x635.blogspot.com/2006/11/7-11-coming-to-central-ave.html; 11/21/2006 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Greenburgh town is famous for having trash cans sitting outside homes for days even after the town has collected the trash. It degrades the neighborhood and makes it look untidy. I know that in some parts of Yonkers that residents cannot put their garbage out too early and also should take the cans in no sooner the town has collected the garbage. Non-observance to these rules means stiff fines. Greenburgh should also have some tidy rules to make the neighorhoods more habitable and classy.; 11/21/2006 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: A big regret I have about having moved from Yonkers to Greenburgh is the DPW services. I'm not sure why, but Greenburgh's DPW practices and standards are significantly inferior to those of Yonkers.; 11/22/2006 6:54 AM
Anonymous said...: The public works department does a great job of picking up garbage, responding to complaints, clearing roads of snow. They did a nice job this summer repaving Ft Hill Road. I'm happy!; 11/22/2006 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: There seems to be at least one or more salients point missing from the discussions of WESTHELP:
- The failure to properly account for the rental income is a material, substantial breach of trust. (If anyone signed an affidavit swearing that all the records had been made available to the auditors there may also be a criminal violation - swearing a false document is such a violation)
- It is illegal for a tax-based government or its proxy to make a gift of taxpayer funds to a private recipient. (A civic association, say Mayfair/Knollwood is a private recipient)
- An illegal action cannot be compelled by contract. (A gift of taxpayer funds may not be given to the Valhalla School District, the Mayfair/Knollwood Civic Association or the Fairview Fire District. The purpose of the gift is completely irrelevant - the giving of the gift is the illegal act. No contract, however sanctified by age or previous action, can compel it.)
- Finally, while there may not be any money missing, the numbers as reported do not add up. From the $1.2 million, subtract the $650,000 for Valhalla, the $100,000 for the Fire District, leaving $450,000 of which $372,000 went into the Town Budget. The remainder $78,000 is less than the amount promised to Mayfair/Knollwood by $22,000 - Does that mean there was never any intention to make the payment to the Civic Association - or perhaps it was the Fire District which was to be shortchanged? Or that there is yet another unreported income stream? Then there is the question of whether the money was in an interest-bearing account and what might have happened to those earnings...
Life isn't fair and even-handed.
If all concerned believe the Valhalla Schools, and or the Mayfair/Knollwood Civic Association, and/or the Fairview Fire District should receive funds, call on Richard Brodsky and Andrea Stewart-Cousins to introduce legislation in Albany to properly fund those entities.
Similarly, the aggrieved villages in the A/B budget debate could push for legislation clarifying and correcting the Finneran Law - unless the are afraid that the result of Finneran, a pattern of racial discrimination carried over from the 19th century, would be so distasteful, or perhaps even illegal under Federal law, as to make it impossible to contemptemplate at the beginning of the 21st century.
Our Town, its residents AND its leaders, must support the law as it is written. If the law doesn't support the result you desire, change the law - don't rely on an elected politican to interpret it because the next guy or gal elected may not see it the way you do.; 11/22/2006 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: To elmo,

I think that part of the problem with putting out/taking garbage and recycling is that schedule is hard to follow. We need to look at that again.

also, when I print out the schedule from the website, the writing is very small. Can the town redo it so it prints out bigger. some of us are over 50; 11/22/2006 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I partially agree with the blogger who suggested that those of us who don't like what the Edgemont "pain in the you know where" is doing to the town to seek remedial state legislation from Senator-elect Cousins and Assemblyman Brodsky. Before the lawsuits started (villages & Edgemont) everyone worked together. We got along. The litigation and fighting is so wrong.; 11/22/2006 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: dear anon at 7:22:

time for a fact check - in 1982 the court of appeals issued a decision in case entitled village of ardsley v. town of greenburgh which concerned veteran park. this was nearly two decades before the current litigation you mention was started. greenburgh is alot of things but its not mayberry rfd. so lets stop the bs that everyone got along in the distant past.; 11/22/2006 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Before the lawsuits started that have impacted unincorporated folks and village taxpayers everyone seemed to be happy. We all benefit when we don't fight each other.; 11/22/2006 10:47 PM
Anonymous said...: What have the lawsuits given us? Instability? Uncertainty? Unhappiness? Anger? Neighbor fighting neighbor?; 11/22/2006 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you talking about the 1982 lawsuit? That everyone was happy before then, I wasnt living in Greenburgh then?; 11/23/2006 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I was only a kid in 1982. I'm not interested in ancient history. For most of my life everyone got along. I believe that the lawsuit regarding the allocation of funds (village/unincorporated Greenburgh) is creating much more harm to the town.; 11/23/2006 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: dear anon at 8:32
you may not be interested in history but history is interested in you. you ignore it at your peril. just ask mr. bush.; 11/23/2006 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Truth Teller

Yes, after the village of Ardsley decision the Legislature enacted the Finneran Law in order to create balance and fairness. It worked until the disaster came along. The disaster is named Bernstein. He seems to get a thrill out of causing chaos, making accusations, playing the victim, and falsely stating what the law is so as to make others feel that they are being victimized. He is running for something for sure -- mayor of the village of Edgemont for a start (if he can get a village of Edgemont). And the Town Council members are his enablers.

Shame on them all.; 11/23/2006 1:15 PM
Anonymous said...: I wonder if the chaos from the lawsuits has had any negative impact on our property values? People want stability - not controversy.; 11/23/2006 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I live in Edgemont. I play tennis. I don't like politics. I am upset that the tennis bubble proposal has not been approved by the Town Board. this is a direct result of the idiotic fight that is going on between the Edgemont lawyer, town and villages.; 11/24/2006 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Their is no chaos, and no negative affect on property value. If Bernstein continues to win, their will be slight decreases in taxes. The only chaos is on the town board, which if they made any attempt to take legal actions, would go away.; 11/25/2006 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: chaos causes inaction. The reason why the Town Council has not taken any action on the tennis bubble is because of the idiotic fighting going on as a result of the unincorporated vs. village lawsuit. The quality of life of tennis players has been hurt -- in a negative fashion. The bubble would have helped the taxpayers- not hurt the taxpayers. The town would have earned rent (six figures annually). Improvements would have been made at the tennis courts by the company that rented the facility. I live in Edgemont and am very mad because I was looking forward to playing tennis in the winter.; 11/25/2006 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Tennis players seem to have a greater sense of entitlement than Edgemont residents in general, and that is saying a lot.; 11/25/2006 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: I live in Edgemont. Do not play tennis. I agree: the lawsuits between a lawyer, the villages and unincorporated Greenburgh hurt everyone. I wonder how much time and taxes the town has had to spend defending its policies? I wonder how many good initiatives like the revenue generating tennis bubble are on hold? I wonder if people are having problems selling their homes because of the uncertainty?; 11/25/2006 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh please, this is not effecting property values. This is Freinds of Feiner trying to drum up opposition agasint Bernstien because:

1. The Village residents dont want to pay their fair share of Town expense.

2. The Town doesnt want to revisit how to have programs in accordance with NYS law on how to budget.; 11/25/2006 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: The issue is not Bernstein (although Feiner and his apologists always try to make it so). The issue is the failure of the town to comply with NYS law by taxing only residents of unincoporated greenburgh for parks freely open to all residents of the town including the villages. All town residents should support fair taxation. If you do not want the parks, either close them or sell them. As the late Milton Friedman taught, there is no free lunch. That principle applies in greenburgh too.; 11/26/2006 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous keeps blaming Feiner for the village/unincorporated Greenburgh budgeting decisions. The entire Town Board -- Steve Bass, Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner & Eddie Mae Barnes--voted to appeal the Bernstein decision. Budgeting decisions are made by the entire Town Board during the budget process. The Town Board will be voting on the 2007 budget in December. It will be interesting to see what they do when it comes to budget allocations.; 11/26/2006 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Anon at 12:11,

Can you explain what you meant by

"Tennis players seem to have a greater sense of entitlement than Edgemont residents in general, and that is saying a lot. "

Are you saying that Edgmont residents in general have a great sense of entitlement? I live in Edgemont, and all I see is we pay taxes greater than the villages for parks they have the same (or in the case of Irvington and Taxter Ridge, greater) access to.; 11/26/2006 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous, who asked the following question;

"Are you saying that Edgmont residents in general have a great sense of entitlement? I live in Edgemont, and all I see is we pay taxes greater than the villages for parks they have the same (or in the case of Irvington and Taxter Ridge, greater) access to."

My answer is for you to watch Town Board meetings. Edgemont residents demand and demand and demand, and they seem totally uninterested and unconcerned about any other part of town, or what their demands will do to other parts of the town. I have heard Edgemont residents complain because "their" taxes are being spent on services to other parts of the town.

Another answer is for you to read the Edgemont Village Report. You will see that the town taxes that Edgemont residents pay is much lower than the village taxes village residents pay, yet Edgemont residents always carry on about their high taxes.

A third answer is that the so-called village access to town parks is a myth. Village residents haven't asked for access because the parks are not near the villages. If the Town decides to give access to outsiders who haven't asked for it, don't need it,don't want it, and don't use it, and it is also against the law for the Town to do it, why should village residents pay? Town residents don't pay when they use village parks, and many do, especially the riverfront parks. By the way, Taxter Ridge is undeveloped woods bought to prevent development of the property. Maybe the squirrels use it, but not people.

Like other Edgemont residents, you have fallen for the propaganda that Edgemont residents are being ripped off. That is an Edgemont mindset because Edgemont residents have such a sense of entitlement.; 11/26/2006 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: If Village residents do not raise questions when the Town acquire parks which, because of their nature, can not be restricted to use by only unincorporated residents, they have only themselves to blame when they lose court cases requiring taxes for such properties to be charged to the town entire.

As to the Village residents paying higher taxes, that is not the fault of Edgemont. We did not vote for you to become a Village. A conclusion one might reach just as easily is that your village services are costing you excessive taxes, and the only way to keep your total tax bill down is to force costs onto the unincorporated areas. In effect, you are asking Edgemont to subsidize your village costs.; 11/26/2006 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: You have just proven the point that Edgemont residents have a sense of entitlement, and also of victimhood.

No matter what the facts are, no matter what the law is, no matter that the Town Board has no governing authority over the villages and never consults with the villages or tell them what they are doing, it is always the fault of the villages -- or anyone other than Edgemont.

No wonder that Greenburgh has become a war zone.; 11/26/2006 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Excuse me -- the board never consults with the villages??

The majority of the voters in the town live in the villages -- that is why they are the "entitled ones" and why the unincorporated ones need the courts to protect them.

The villages can, and effectively have, voted in the town council that protects them.; 11/26/2006 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: "The majority of the voters in the town live in the villages -- that is why they are the "entitled ones" and why the unincorporated ones need the courts to protect them.

The villages can, and effectively have, voted in the town council that protects them."

THAT'S THE LATEST PARTY LINE, THE LATEST LAME EXCUSE. ANYTHING WILL DO TO JUSTIFY THE VICTIMHOOD OF EDGEMONT RESIDENTS -- ANYTHING BUT REASONABLENESS AND A SENSE OF FAIRNESS. IF THIS TOWN COUNCIL PROTECTS THE VILLAGES, THAT WILL COME AS A BIG SURPRISE TO VILLAGE RESIDENTS.; 11/26/2006 11:48 AM
Anonymous said...: I dont remember any of the village officials cautioning Feiner or the Town Council re spending for open space, or how it would ultimately be charged? Where were they then??; 11/26/2006 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: "I dont remember any of the village officials cautioning Feiner or the Town Council re spending for open space, or how it would ultimately be charged? Where were they then??"

IF VILLAGE OFFICIALS HAD BEEN ASKED, OR MERELY INFORMED, THEY WOULD HAVE CAUTIONED PLENTY.

YOU CAN RATIONALIZE ALL YOU WANT, BUT THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE. EDGEMENOT RESIDENTS WANT, WANT, AND THEN WANT MORE. THEY ARE SOOOO SPECIAL.; 11/26/2006 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "If the village officials had been informed"

Please dont tell me that the village officials did not know of Fiener's plans to acquire Taxter Ridge. Please dont tell me that the Village officials do not know of Fiener's plans to start the SAT camp. The Village officials are well aware that the Union Day Care Center provides services to village residents -- it is in the Rosenberg/SCOBA report.

It is absurd to think that the Village officials are not aware of the issues.; 11/26/2006 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Read the story in the Journal News today about our gutless wonders. They are the Town Councilmembers who want to shift the blame regarding WESTHELP away from themselves. They are spending town tax dollars hiring an attorney to conduct an investigation. They act like they are innocent. They approved the same budget document that Feiner approved.; 11/26/2006 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Our Town Council likes to spend our money. They hired a mediator to resolve the village/unincorporated lawsuit and dispute. Any results? No. They now are hiring a lawyer to investigate the budget they approved. If they hired anyone it should of been an accountant. Why can't they make decisions themselves instead of hiring others to do the work we paid them to do?; 11/26/2006 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Our Town Council likes to spend our money. They hired a mediator to resolve the village/unincorporated lawsuit and dispute. Any results? No. They now are hiring a lawyer to investigate the budget they approved. If they hired anyone it should of been an accountant. Why can't they make decisions themselves instead of hiring others to do the work we paid them to do?; 11/26/2006 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Two and a half weeks after the general election, there are still many campaign signs/posters, especially on Knollwood Rd., between Dobbs Ferry Road (100B) and Stadium Rd. We thought that the candidates were supposed to remove them.

How about some action please!!; 11/26/2006 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: LEAVES!!!!! When will they be picked up? Besides being unsightly, it is dangerous to drive, especialy after a rainstorm.; 11/26/2006 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I hope the Town Board approves Supervisor Feiner's recommendation to issue an RFP to private landscapers to assist the town with leaf collection.; 11/27/2006 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...: How come the Town Council wasted our tax dollars by hiring a lawyer instead of an accountant to review the HELP contract? When one checks financial records it makes more sense to retain the services of an accountant. Hiring a law firm might make good headlines but the lawyer will have to hire an accountant. That is an unnecessary cost.; 11/27/2006 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: How come the Town Council (actually the vote of the entire Town Board) hired an attorney?

The point is well made that the attorney will be hiring an accountant but what everyone seems to be overlooking is that the "highest" authority has yet to be heard. Hiring anyone in advance of the release of the State Comptroller's report seems pre-mature as though the Council's Resolution appeared solely to appease those residents (from apparently the town's only two areas, Edgemont and the Villages) who speak on this blog, who speak at Town Board meetings and who write letters to the editor. Perhaps they are even the same voices, speaking in different media.

And if the logic prevails that the Supervisor is indeed responsible for everything that lands on his desk, so should the TOWN COUNCIL BE RESPONSIBLE, not for everything that lands on the Supervisor's desk but JUST FOR THOSE MATTERS ON WHICH THEY VOTED. Such a vote was the WESTHELP issue and all the disbursement issues that arose subsequently.

That the Town Council is so emotive and throwing up any number of misdirections and camoflage is the product of having a full-time aide at its disposal. Taxpayers are paying not just for outside Counsel, with or without an accountant, but also for the $50,000+ services of Mr. Kaminer whose only function seems to be to whitewash the affairs of the Town Council.

Meanwhile, in the background, the Town's single largest expense, the Library expansion QUIETLY goes downhill and all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put it together again because as the budget scam becomes obvious to those who care to look, pieces of the project are getting lost along the way to the long overdue construction start.; 11/27/2006 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Members of the Town Council have to start learning how to make decisions. Hiring a lawyer to review the HELP contract is a pass the buck action. Hiring a mediator to help the town resolve the A & B budget issues has cost the taxpayers thousands but hasn't produced any results. If the members of the Town Council make mistakes (as we all do) admit it-- don't only blame Feiner.; 11/27/2006 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Hal Samis is right

As a village resident who personally feels the brunt of the poisonous atmosphere between the Town Council and the Supervisor and the poisonous atmosphere directed by some Edgemont residents towards the villages, let me add some facts:

1. The Town Council is hiding, as usual. The facts of the improper accounting were disclosed in detail in the SCOBA Report (pages 17-18), and in a letter from me to the Board on December 21, 2005 that information was repeated, with an explicit reference to the unidentified account in which the annual $100K had been placed. For the Council members to express surprise and consternation is not surprising, but unacceptable.

2. The resolution adopted November 20 to hire an independent counsel to investigate may well be a dodge. The resolution provides that the Town Council hires the independent counsel, and he reports to the Town Council. The Supervisor is on the Town Board, but not the Town Council, hence this subtle touch may be unnoticed -- what it means though is that the Council membsre are excluding him, which is a helluva way to do anything, much less something as important as this. The four Council persons (Barnes, Bass, Juettner and Sheehan)are thus in control. Even though they have a strong conflict of interest -- they, afer all, may have significant responsibility in this accountiung scandal -- they hire, and thus they may well be able to affect the so-called independent counsel's findings and to put all the blame on others and to protect them from responsibility. If tbis independent counsel is to do a proper job -- and we need a proper job to find out how this got started and why it continued -- we have to be sure that the independent counsel is truly independent, and that means that he/she is appointed independently, not by the four Council persons.; 11/27/2006 1:31 PM
Anonymous said...: so Herb, who should hire the independent counsel/auditor; 11/27/2006 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Who should hire the independent counsel? For sure, not the Town Council, who may have much to hide (including some possible criminal culpability if the Town's financial statements omitted the funds altogether).

There are some easy and good suggestions I can make (as can others), but if I make them the Town Council will ignore them, as they have ignored all the rather prophetic cautions I have given them. But if you identify yourself, I may make those suggestions to you.; 11/27/2006 2:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

That someone might ignore your suggestion is no reason not to make it.

Perhaps you think your "independent" SCOBA committe, or the committe of Village Officials is best, but are hesitant to recommend to an audience included unincorporated residents.; 11/27/2006 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Anonymous, whoever you are.

You are wrong again. I don't think the village officials committee should do the hiring.

If you take the chip off your shoulder, and quit putting the symbol " before and after the word "independent" when you refer to SCOBA, you might actually be able to do some serious and objective thinking. As it is, I take back my offer to make my suggestions to you -- it would be pointless. So stay anonymous.; 11/27/2006 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I do think objectively, which is why I put “independent” in front of SCOBA. What makes me say that – the bias in the report toward the villages –

1. The parks issue – when the report indicated incorrectly that Town parks are restricted to town residents. Instead the Town Council, elected by town residents, the majority of whom resign in the Villages, vote to acquire parks and then charge the costs only to the unincorporated residences.

2. The report stating that the town hall land, if used by the library, must be paid for by the Library. The report does not indicate any support for such.

3. The report questioning the budget allocation of the cable revenue (the tax is charged only to unincorporated residents, report questioned whether it should be allocated to the town entire). The town took immediate action, requested advice from the state and was told no, the revenue is to be booked to the unincorporated town.

In short, the report takes the approach that where either it is fair or the law, or neither, budget allocations should benefit the villages. The committee was handpicked to represent the villages and the representative of the unincorporated area that needed funding for pet projects.

Herb, if you and the rest of the committee had tried to be fair, you might have some support in the unincorporated area.

So to all the people like you,let me say calling us names, like "having a chip on my shoulder" or the "victimization" will not make us give up.; 11/27/2006 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Anonymous, whoever you are.

We are clearly talking past each other. Your gripe against SCOBA has nothing whatever to do with the fact that the accounting scandal requires independent, without quotation marks, investigation, and this Town Council has every reason to not want an independent investigation that might find them at fault. But for you every issue comes down to the parks and budget allocations and nit-picking SCOBA, so there is no point in further comments.; 11/27/2006 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb, it is not about nit picking -- as you yourself have said, these are large dollar issues.

It is about credibility.; 11/27/2006 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with the comment that the Town Council members should not select the law firm that will be conducting the investigation of the WESTHELP accounting. The members of the entire Town Council voted for the 2006 budget. They approved all transactions and resolutions relating to WESTHELP. The attorney that is hired should be totally independent of all town officials who cast votes regarding WESTHELP. The Town Council members may want to act like they knew nothing. They cast the same votes as the supervisor.; 11/27/2006 7:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Paul Feiner says he wants to honor a commitment made to residents of Mayfair Knollwood to provide funding for neighborhood enhancements. The Town Council doesn't feel that agreements they previously approved have to be honored. However, they approved the budget document they now claim contained inaccurate information. Don't they read what they approve?; 11/27/2006 7:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Hello All!

I created this blog as a spinoff to my other blog ( http://www.x635.blogspot.com ) because I wanted to document further some of the propaganda that comes out of the Town Supervisor's Blog (http://www.pfeiner.blogspot.com ) and document some of the issues he continuously neglects in this town, especially Hartsdale.

Living and working in this town, this town has so much potential yet is misguided and many parts neglects. Don't get me wrong, I love this town, it just is so frusterating to see some of the simple things not taken care of. I hope by writing this blog I will bring attention to some of the issues that concern me, much like I did with the Barnes and Noble Closing article in the NY Times.

I have a ton I want to write about, so I hope you will stay tuned.

http://greenburghtruth.blogspot.com/; 11/27/2006 7:37 PM
Paul Feiner said...: Dear X635: Thank you for starting your own blog. I read your blog and found it interesting. One of my goals in setting up this blog is to encourage more people to get involved --to discuss issues --to bring important quality of life concerns to the attention of elected officials. I do not see my blog as propaganda. Propaganda, in my opinion, is one sided info. I always welcomd a discussion of issues. I want more people to get involved...I want more people to discuss issues...I want an honest exchange of views about issues. I am open minded and believe that citizen comments can help me become a better Town Supervisor. I am not afraid of disagreements and actually welcome views from people who don't share my philosophy of government.
I hope you'll consider attending Town Board meetings and that you will speak out about issues that concern you.; 11/27/2006 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Read that the library is having some problems in today's paper and that the director has quit. Where is the Town Council? How come the Council members don't hire a lawyer to investigate the construction screw ups?; 11/28/2006 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: The Town Council won't hire a lawyer to investigate library screw ups because they can't blame anyone but themselves for not paying attention to the problems the library has had regarding construction and Elmsford. Our Town Council likes to find scapegoats for problems they created.; 11/28/2006 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: There is a difference between construction delays, the Elmsford situation, which Feiner encouraged by trying to mediate and give more benefits to the villages, as aways, and an illegal payment.; 11/28/2006 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear 1:32,
You've got me hooked, what is the difference other than the spelling of the words?

As I know it:

Construction delays at the Library.
See the Library's Building Team (Howard Jacobs, Susan Wolfert and Estelle Palevsky) and Al Regula who the Town Council appointed to keep them and the public informed

Elmford situation.
Feiner and the Town Council had nothing to do with it. This was the stillborn baby of the Library Board of Trustees Chair, Howard Jacobs who did not invite the Supervisor to attend. The only comments made by Feiner and the Council came after the contract was a signed done deal. But regarding the outcome, I don't blame Mr. Jacobs either; this was merely the result of opportunistic foreigners who took advantage of a Greenburgh weakness and thought only of their constituents benefit. Not unlike how Edgemont wants to have a moratorium on Central Avenue residential development.

Benefits to the Villages.
Surely you recognize that the Town Board voted together to give these "so-called" benefits to the Villages.

Illegal payments.
Again, you recognize that the Town Board voted to do this, and even recently while publically plagued and pained by the illegality, the entire Town Board voted to continue these payments.

So, again, what is the difference between your touchstone points?
You are shooting but you are shooting blanks.; 11/28/2006 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Rosenberg's credibility was further weakened by his lying about the emails he got from Mr Feiner.

Interesting we never hear from Mr. Rosenberg on the (im)propriety of Feiner taking contributions from the town's auditors.

As for the value of SCOBA, Mr. Rosenberg admitted to Feiner that the Finneran law has to be amended to
permit the town to restrict the taxes to unincoporated while access to the parks is unlimited to all town residents.; 11/28/2006 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be nice if we were all our own independent municipalities, with no legal interconnections. Of course, cooperation would be encouraged, but ending the constant town/villages dramas would be so nice.; 11/28/2006 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: the problem would be, how do we divide up the costs of "Feiner's Follies"?

who pays for Taxter Ridge, Glenville Woods, Harts whatever, the Union Day Care Center, etc.?; 11/28/2006 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous, who wrote the following:

"As for the value of SCOBA, Mr. Rosenberg admitted to Feiner that the Finneran law has to be amended to permit the town to restrict the taxes to unincoporated while access to the parks is unlimited to all town residents."

* * *

You, and others, listen too much to Bernstein's misstatement of facts, law, and documents, instead of reading and learning the truth. The notion that I "admitted to Feiner the Finneran law has to be amended to permit the town to restrict the taxes to unincoporated while access to the parks is unlimited to all town residents" is a twist that Bernstein has been floating, and is typical of his misstatements.

What he was misstating is a letter that I sent to the Board, not to Feiner, on April 18, and it does not involve the question of taxing the villages. It involved the potential violation by the Town if it accepted certain kinds of grants. I will append the section of that letter which Bernstein misstates. You will note that I was advising the Board that if they wanted to accept a grant which required open admission, they would be in non-compliance with the Finneran law, which required that town parks be restricted to unincorporated area residents. I suggested that if they want to be in compliance they propose an amendment which would give the town some flxibility which would allow the town to receive such grants. My suggestion was not for an amendment regarding the change in the Finneran Law regarding the allocation of taxes. Indeed, I said that it the town accepts a grant which violates the residency requirement it might lead to more litigation. As far as the villages are concerned, the Finneran Law is fine as it is. It is the Town Board which has a problem, because of the tight restrictions of the residency requirement, which the Town Board has been systematically violating. If the Town Board is happy with the tightness of the residency requirement of the Finneran Law, it is OK with me, as long as they don't use that violation as an excuse to charge the A budget in further violation of the Finneran Law.

It is because the Finneran Law requires that the use of town parks and recreational facilities be restricted to unincoporated area residentds that the town doesn't have a tennis bubble, that the town may be precluded from receiving some grants, and that the town's recreation programs may have to be cut back substantially. My suggestion was to help the town get out of that statutory bind, at least as far as grants are concerned. It is still good advice, but I don't expect that the Town Board will pay any attention --and that will please the true believers in the unincorporated area, who listen only to Bernstein's revised version of the Finneran Law.

Here is the letter that I sent to the Town Board on April 18. It is not surprising that the Town Board never responded. They never do when a village resident says anything (as they did not respond when I notified them last year about the improper accounting of the WestHELP rentals, which is now such a scandal -- but that is another blog posting).

* * *

"I attended the work session today, as you know, mainly because of my interest in the discussion of the $75,000 grant that was originally scheduled for a generator in the multipurpose center. The decision to place that generator in Town Hall eliminated the specific problem, but it did not eliminate the general problem, and it is this that I would like to address.

You all received the letter from the VOC which explained why the acceptance of the grant for the multipurpose center raised a difficult problem -- you would either have to turn it down because of the Finneran Law requirement that access to town-owned parks be restricted to unincorporated area residents, or else breach the grant agreement by limiting access to unincorporated area residents. The reason -- though Bob Bernstein disputes it -- is that the Finneran Law is quite explicit about requiring town-owned parks to be restricted to unincorporated area residents. Bernstein has asserted that the Finneran Law doesn’t apply when access is permitted to the general public. I have no intention of getting into a legal discussion about that, ridiculous though I think his assertion is, because that determination will be made by a court if Bernstein goes through with his lawsuit, as he has threatened. My point is different.

Grant contracts are a valuable resource and should be encouraged. At this point, any grant contract from the State or County will probably require open admission, and this puts any and every State and County grant into conflict with the provision of the Finneran Law residency requirement, because the Finneran Law only exempts U. S. Government grant contracts. I suspect that if Bill Finneran had thought of future State and County grants, he would have enlarged the exemption to include such grants. But he did not. And there is the problem.

While I cannot speak for the VOC (though I believe that I know their thinking) the VOC would have to contest a State or County grant that requires open admission, because it threatens the rights of village residents under the Finneran Law. The Finneran Law provides an exception from the residency restriction only for the requirements of a federal grant contract. But I am quite sure that the VOC would have no problem with an amendment to the Finneran Law which substitutes the words “between said town and any government” for the words “between said town and the United States government” in section 2 of the Finneran Law. That would eliminate any dispute about the residency requirements in a State and/or County grant as far as the VOC is concerned."; 11/28/2006 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: If Rosenberg were right, and Finneran's purpose was to prevent the town from ever taxing the villages for its parks, the town didn't need the state to pass the Finneran law -- it could simply have created a park district. But doing that would have required the consent of the people to be taxed, i.e., the people of the town's unincorporated areas. So why didn't the town do that? Were they trying to do an end run around the state requirement that there be consent before a town can impose part-town taxation? Or was Tony Veteran trying to preserve the town's flexibility to decide, down the road, that it might be in the public interest of the entire town if certain of the town's parks and recreation facilities were no longer segregated, as they were back in 1982, and instead were open town-wide? Could it be that he wanted the flexibility to be able to offer recreational services to low income and minority families not just in the unincorporated areas, but throughout the town? Think about it Rosenberg. Wasn't the purpose of Finnernan merely to authorize the town to continue a practice of restricting use and costs to unincorporated areas? Do you really think the town would have proposed permanently tying its hands like you suggest? And do you seriously think the legislature would have approved a scheme that would have stripped unincorporated area residents of their rights to consent?; 11/28/2006 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Why wasn't the tennis bubble approved? Now we know. It's because Rosenberg, this haughty self-styled village advocate and Feiner confidante, has been telling the town board that the Finneran law won't permit the town to let its tennis facilities be open town-wide, and rather than stand up and say that's wrong, which it is, the town has filed legal papers saying Rosenberg is right. It doesn't matter whether Rosenberg is right or wrong, if I'm Sporttime and that's the legal position the town is taking, I couldn't say goodbye to Greenburgh fast enough.
Feiner says we should all blame Bernstein for this. What a crock. That's just Feiner trying to divert attention from himself, his pandering to the villages, and the terrible disservice his playing politics has done to the town's tennis playing community.; 11/28/2006 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...: "Rosenberg is wrong" suggests a number of things that the Legislature and the town could have done, but did not do. The town could have created a park district, but it did not do so. The town could have asked the Legislature to give the town flexibility to decide park and recreational use later, but it did not do so. The Finneran law could have given the town the ability to offer recreational facilities throughout the entire town, but it did not do so. It is idle to speculate whether the Legislature "would have approved a scheme that would have stripped unincorporated area residents of their rights to consent" because no such right existed in the absence of a park district and the Legislature did not give the town such a right. What the Finneran Law did say is that town parks and recreational facilities SHALL be restricted in use to residents of the unincorporated area. That leaves no room for speculations that the Legislature meant something other than what it stated in simple language.

The Finneran law could have been written differently than it was, but the circumstances which gave rise to it resulted in the law that the Legislature did adopt. One must look at what the Legislature enacted, not what you think the Legislature should have enacted. Read the statute's language. Read the legilstive history. Read Finneran's letter explaining the law he drafted. They all say what I have described. Whether or not I like it, or whether or no you don't like it, are irrelevant. Neither of us is God, and we must comply with the laws that exist.

At the Taxter Ridge argument at the Appellate Division on November 9 Bernstein made a comment that something would be fair. One of the judges interrupted and said "It isn't what is fair, it is what the statute says." It may seem unfair to some or fair to others -- just like so many other statutes relating to town-village budget allocations -- but unless the laws are changed we have to live with them. On Taxter Ridge we will soon have an answer from the Appellate Division.

You ask me to "think about it." I have thought quite a lot about it since March 2005. I hope that I don't sound smug, but I think that I know the law as well as anyone -- indeed, better than almost everyone. I do not pontificate or offer my take on what the law means. I look at the statute and if the words are clear I can go no farther. The Finneran law is clear. If anyone thinks it is not 100% clear I suggest that person to read the legislative record on that statute, which makes the law's clarity even sharper. Those who argue that the statute doesn't mean what it says try to do it by adding words and implications that do not exist to the statute and the legislative record.

It has been sad to see so many people who have been persuaded that they are being ripped off, through selective and often very deceptive recitations regarding the law. Even some of the blog postings are filled with nastiness and insults and ridiculous accusations -- as evidenced by the blog posting that follows yours. I wonder whether the civility and neighborliness that used to exist will ever be restored.

I have written some comments on this blog in an effort to add knowledge, but I have found that many people do not want the knowledge since it interferes with the conclusions that they have reached. Hence I will make this posting my swan song. If anyone wants to discuss it further that person can buy me lunch and we'll talk.; 11/28/2006 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...: You say the people of unincorporated Greenburgh never had any right under state law, even back in 1982, to consent to being forever taxed for Greenburgh's parks? Sorry, but you're wrong. Laws creating park districts which permit part-town taxation expressly require such consent, and the state would not and cannot just legislate those rights away for people living in unincorporated Greenburgh -- and no one else -- no matter how politically powerful you may think Greenburgh's villages were back in 1982 because to do so would violate the state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the law and due process and I don't think any court would be prepared to read Finneran to do that. Finneran should therefore be read like that judge read it in the Taxter Ridge case -- as authorizing a practice and nothing more than that. In fact, that's all the statute says in its first section that it's doing -- authorizing the continuation of an established procedure. The language in section 2 of Finneran that describes the conditions under which use and cost are to be restricted are merely describing the limited circumstances under which the town may avail itself of this part-town taxation scheme.; 11/29/2006 5:38 AM
Anonymous said...: I heard that the Town Council yesterday hired a law firm at $475 an hour to review town budget allocations.; 11/29/2006 9:38 AM
Anonymous said...: You must be kidding. $475 an hour for a law firm? Are village residents paying the fees or is this coming out of the budget for unincorporated Greenburgh residents.
Hope no town official or "anonymous activist" is getting a referral fee.; 11/29/2006 10:05 AM
Anonymous said...: If as Rosenberg says the greenburgh town board (meaning Feiner and the 4 town councilmembers) are violating Finneran by not restricting all of the town's parks (except veteran park) to residents of unincorporated greenburgh (who are the only ones being taxed for such fully open parks), it appears the villages are remiss in not suing the town of greenburgh to enforce finneran's restrictive access provisions. Otherwise, as the villages have more votes than the rest of the town, it appears the villages have consented to this practice and cannot complain that they are obligated to pay for parks they can use.; 11/29/2006 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear anon at 10:05,

The only people who get special benefits are the village residents --; 11/29/2006 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Every time Feiner's conduct forces the town to hire outside counsel for its own protection, and that of the public, Feiner complains about the lawyer's hourly rate. The last time this happened was two years ago when a Hastings politico who wanted to be the town's third judge sued the town board for allegedly conspiring to pass the resolution creating the judgeship too late that year for the Democrats to hold a primary. In that case, Feiner publicly sided with the Hastings guy and even offered to testify on this behalf. Because Feiner took sides against the town, the Town Council had to hire outside counsel -- and wouldn't you know it, Feiner complained about the cost. Turns out the cost was minimal because the suit was tossed out as frivolous.
Now he's at it again, complaining about the hourly rate that the independent counsel is charging the town for her investigation into the town's off-the-books accounting for the WestHelp money and the resulting mistakes on the town's audited financial statements. Feiner, as the town's chief financial officer, is legally responsible for these misdeeds, which is why he of all people should understand why independent counsel is needed to restore public integrity in the town's financials. I heard that the lawyer was someone recommended by the dean of the law school at Pace. Does Feiner have a problem with that?
The Town Council capped the cost at $20,000, and hopefully that's all it will cost -- and yes, because Feiner is elected town-wide, and is legally responsible to get the accounting done right, that's an expense that everyone in the town must bear.; 11/29/2006 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Every time Feiner's conduct forces the town to hire outside counsel for its own protection, and that of the public, Feiner complains about the lawyer's hourly rate. The last time this happened was two years ago when a Hastings politico who wanted to be the town's third judge sued the town board for allegedly conspiring to pass the resolution creating the judgeship too late that year for the Democrats to hold a primary. In that case, Feiner publicly sided with the Hastings guy and even offered to testify on this behalf. Because Feiner took sides against the town, the Town Council had to hire outside counsel -- and wouldn't you know it, Feiner complained about the cost. Turns out the cost was minimal because the suit was tossed out as frivolous.
Now he's at it again, complaining about the hourly rate that the independent counsel is charging the town for her investigation into the town's off-the-books accounting for the WestHelp money and the resulting mistakes on the town's audited financial statements. Feiner, as the town's chief financial officer, is legally responsible for these misdeeds, which is why he of all people should understand why independent counsel is needed to restore public integrity in the town's financials. I heard that the lawyer was someone recommended by the dean of the law school at Pace. Does Feiner have a problem with that?
The Town Council capped the cost at $20,000, and hopefully that's all it will cost -- and yes, because Feiner is elected town-wide, and is legally responsible to get the accounting done right, that's an expense that everyone in the town must bear.; 11/29/2006 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: And lets not forget the wasted $25,000 on a mediator courtesy of feiner and juettner.; 11/29/2006 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Overtaxed -

What would your solution be to the A/B budget issues?; 11/29/2006 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, feiner said it again, start being truthful. Feiner hasn't complained about the lwayers fee. You are making it up. You make Karl Rove seem almost like an honest man.

And where do you get that Pace recommended the new counsel. Seems to me that the four headless horsemen, Bass, Sheehan, Barnes and Juttner, hired the independent lawyer because they want to blame everything on the Supervisor, as though they are innocent babes who know nothing. This lawyer is supposed to do their job for them, but it won't work.

Who tells you all these things? I can guess - Bernstein.; 11/29/2006 1:12 PM
Paul Feiner said...: I have not objected to an independent review of our WESTHELP records.; 11/29/2006 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Not objecting to the hiring of independent counsel and not objecting to the fee charged are two VERY different things.
So Paul, which is it you don't object to? The counsel or the fee?; 11/29/2006 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: I am a taxpayer and resent the fact that the Town Council hired an expensive $475 an hour law firm. Don't they have lawyers who work for the town government who could do the same thing? Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes, Diana Juettner,Francis Sheehan--stop wasting my money!; 11/29/2006 5:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Has anyone else who has sat in on a Town Board meeting wondered how it is possible that Bob Bernstein and Francis Sheehan are not commenting on this blog? I find the idea preposterous - the two of them live for the microphone and being identified. They could not possoibly resist spreading their "ideas" here. So I conclude that Bob Bernstein and Francis Sheehan are definitely here, and they are two of the people hiding behind "anonymous" or some other cute non-name. Shame on you, Bob - you have a big mouth, and you never hesitate to open it, but here on a blog you use the cloak of anonymity to present your vitriolic opinions. And as for councilman Sheehan, you should be ashamed of yourself even more. You are an elected official, you have to be accountable to us. We pay your salary. You work for us. How dare you hide behind a screen? I don't often agree with Hal Samis, or with Herb Rosenberg, but I appreciate that they use their own names here. X635 or whatever it is uses a pseudynom, but it's a blog name so he is accountable and responsible for his postings. Same for Paul feiner who always posts here from his own private account so we know it is he who is talking. Bravo to those who use their own names and shame on the rest of you cowards. Bernstein and Sheehan especially.; 11/29/2006 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: to Jan Rosen,

Bernstien and Sheehan speak up plenty -- we know where they stand.; 11/29/2006 6:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Leaf Problem:
I feel that Greenburgh should make it mandatory for gardeners to either remove or bag the leaves. Whereas leaves left in piles in the street wwere only removed once and not until this past Saturday morning, the sanitation workers have done a great job of picking up the bags of leaves every week.
This would also cut down on the overtime required to remove the piles of leaves which is often done on weekends and holidays.; 11/29/2006 6:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Samis weighs in...
In all the comments posted regarding our homegrown version of Hatfield vs McCoy, perhaps this too needs to be said.

No one actually moved to Greenburgh because they wanted to live next door to a bunch of people named anonymous. The idea that we are all neighbors with the same needs and dreams and should get along living in harmony is laughable to anyone who remembers Sociology 1, to everyone but Ms. Barnes perhaps. Next time you buy a home, look at a planned community such as built by the Walt Disney Company.

There are some things that occur which are of mutual benefit to all parts of town but there are many more which are of value only to a limited, specific area. Consensus is not ever going to rule the roost, if it ever did.
We have to face the fact that as much as he unlocked Pandora's box, Mr. Bernstein has only caused a long overdue examination of how the respective areas of Town match up with or against each other.

Personally, I don't see that the ultimately fairest approach is going to be answered by numbers: Who has a greater population, who pays more in taxes. There may be legal rulings, precedents and even new laws when these matters are finally resolved but no one goes to Court expecting the fair result (justice is blind) but just a binding result.

In the meanwhile, what seems to be the winning approach to get goodies from government is to come with warm bodies and fill the Town Hall auditorium when a matter of concern is before the Town Board. When great numbers of residents take the trouble to appear, to come to the podium and speak...the result is always the same. And now that it is known that you don't even have to state your name, I expect to see many more speakers, bloggers, appear with paper bags over their heads or wearing masks.

The "purity" or insightfulness of a choreographed group effort is always recognized and rewarded by the Town Board who never fail to disappoint.
Be it Verizon, the Valhalla School District, a local Church, the Library, a health center or even the Alice's Restaurant Movement when it comes to picking up the garbage.

I'm thinking in particular of two such staged events (plus one to come) and how they became the centerpieces of this November blog. The first matter is the collection of residents, school board officials and civic association members who arrived en masse to persuade the Town Council to release monies to the Valhalla School District. And, against their "better" judgement they accommodated them later that night. Only after the meeting ended did the Town Council begin their inspired campaign to deny any knowledge that what they voted on was illegal because that would put them in the penalty box if they voted knowingly to continue an illegal act. So, you see, even the Town Council is not always so smart when they vote.

Some years ago another school district, East Irvington, got a boost from their staged turnout; this occasion a meeting at the old town hall. Eventually that show's run (a starring role for Carol B and Danny G) ended with the vote that would come to be remembered as the "vote that launched a 1000 lawsuits" and it was, of course, the vote to acquire Taxter Ridge. I was then strongly opposed not only because it was inaccessible, to be maintained solely by Greenburgh but also because it was over-priced because of the intervening passage of steep slopes and wetland laws which rendered virtually 65% of the site unusable to any potential developer (and done without am updated appraisal which reflected this material event). But it too passed and again, the Town Council (I am not saying Town Board because everyone already knows the the Supervisor is behind every problem) including Diana Juettner from the Villages voted on the purchase. Ms Juettner must have forgotten that under the prevailing "doing business as" morality it was okay for her to join the fun and photo op and vote for an expense to be paid by residents other than herself. This lesson remained unlearned for Ms Juettner because she repeats this transgression by voting in a number of Greenburgh Library votes despite knowing now that it is not her library and that her part of town won't be paying for it.

Now, let's jump from the dark days of yore to the present, leading into the very near future. This time it is another school district and it is to take place well after Mr. Bernstein had alerted the entire town to what have appeared to be acts of favoritism and of dubious merit, if not illegality, elsewhere. Today the setting is Edgemont, the school district. Flowing through the middle of Edgemont is a river of concrete and asphalt called popularly, Central Avenue. The Edgemont Community Council, Bob Bernstein member, Michelle McNally chair, is coming to Town Hall to cry "save OUR school district" by granting a moratorium to prevent residential development along Central Avenue. In doing so, the school district will not have to face a potential influx of new school age children if anyone actually intends and succeeds in building new residential. This moratorium is just a precaution.
Such a "spot" moratorium is not only of dubious legality it is also of dubious morality and for certain is not something that those owners of property on the Avenue will be enamored of should such a procedure be enacted. Note that the owners of Central Avenue pay substantial real estate taxes to the Town and for those located within Edgemont, substantial Edgemont school taxes.

So you see the conflict resolution is pretty evenly distributed throughout the Town. The Villages want relief from Ridge Hill and the Town entire spends well over $300,00o to study and fight. The Community Center in Fairview is weel-funded and they are even going to get their leaves picked up. Every dog has its day in the dog park. Perhaps that is what government is about and the expectation that every action undertaken at Town Hall will be for everyone's benefit is simply the dream that ended Camelot. Our farmers and our cowmen are not going to be friends; so maybe good fences do make good neighbors. And if the all-knowing Post Office believes that Edgemont is Scarsdale, who are the rest of us to holler, it's in Greenburgh.; 11/29/2006 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Hal,

For the nth time, it was not Mr. Bernstein, but Mr. Rosenberg who has been leading the charge on the Valhalla situation -- although I think a third gentlemen actually filed the initial complaint with the state.

I think Mr. Bernstein is a pretty competent guy, but he's not responsible for everthing.

just watch the replay of the old town meetings. Of course, your guiding star, Mr. Feiner, also attributes statements made by Mr. Rosenberg to Mr. Bernstein.; 11/29/2006 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear nth time,

Looking quickly I thought you were orchestrating Beethoven's NINTH Symphony, the "Choral".

The trick my eyes played on me must have been played on you also.

When viewing the meeting tapes, do you not see repeat appearances by a short man, speaking in a very low voice so you will strain to hear and thus give 100% attention to what is being said (old public speaking trick)?

Meet Bob Bernstein.

To Mr. Bernstein's credit, if he were reading my entry, he would not conclude that I made any statement anywhere approaching your own conclusion that I said he (Bernstein) was leading the Valhalla charge.

If you still see otherwise and it is not just your eyes, maybe somehow you will qualify for a reading assistance program courtesy of the Valhalla School District.

Let's hope so.; 11/29/2006 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: and Hal, did you look at the replay of earlier meetings with Mr. Rosenberg, who from his posts on the blob, continues to push for, IMHO, appropriate investigation. Why you wish to minimize the role that Mr. Rosenberg has played is beyond me,; 11/29/2006 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Before the Town Council hired a $475 hour attorney did they issue requests for proposals? Perhaps, with some competitive bidding Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes, Diana Juettner and Francis Sheehan could of saved the taxpayers some $$$$$$.; 11/29/2006 11:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Can someone tell us why the council resolution hiring the law firm has the lawfirm reporting to the 4 councilmembers but not Feiner? Supposedly, the law firm that the council hired is looking into WESTHELP. Feiner and the Board cast exactly the same votes on WESTHELP. The law firm should report to all 5 officials: the Supervisor & Council.; 11/29/2006 11:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon @ 10:51,

You lost the first round so now you're back for round two...

What I wrote was not really about Bernstein and certainly not about Rosenberg. It was not about their opposing positions on the A/B issues.

Why Bernstein is mentioned and Rosenberg is not is because the thrust of my entry is to show that in days of yore when no one thought about who was paying or not paying, Taxter Ridge was purchased to help the East Irvington school district. Years later a lease was signed with the County with the Valhalla School District becoming the beneficiary of a ten year revenue stream as a conditon; in this situation town residents weren't paying to subsidize this venture as it was from income that otherwise wouldn't have appeared had the agreement not existed. And the Town checking account existed as a conduit to move money in and out...not really mcuh different from all those budget transfers that get periodically voted upon a Town Board meetings and no one knows from where to where or why the money is moving. Or cares.

I'm not trying to enter the hubris of whether the WESTHELP funds were properly dispensed or disbursed. There is a NYS Comptroller's report waiting to be released and I'll accept his conclusions.

The point however, and it has nothing to do with Rosenberg, is that coming before the Town Board is another example of the Town being asked to come to the aid of a school district; this time the district is Edgemont.

The "gift" here is a moratorium on residential development which would, if successful, hold the number of school age children at current levels. That is, if there were any reasonable belief that such residential development was proposed or to be executed. It is a "spot" moratorium being sought, just on Greenburgh's portion of Central Avenue which includes two school districts, Edgemont and Central 7. However I don't think that Edgemont is in the catbird seat because they are worrying about Central 7. They just don't want to be portrayed as selfish so they are masking their wants by including a show of concern for the entire Central Avenue.

Someone will have to pay for this moratorium and it will be those who own property on Central Avenue. These owners already pay real estate taxes and school taxes. In a moratorium, their right to full enjoyment of their investment diminshes, the value of the property in a sale is less due to the uncertainties of how long the moratorium lasts and the outcome. Yada yada yada...

But since almost everyone has found fault with the two prior school district rescues, it seems to me to be hypocritical for the same indivuals so upset over Valhalla, to want to replicate the alleged "favoritism" and have no problem with the result because it is happening this time on their turf. What is good for the goose is good for the gander with the additional upgrade that by now everyone should know to tread with caution. That the Edgemont leaders are not doing so makes me question whether Mr. Bernstein is acting consistently and if not, then maybe his public concerns regarding the Valhalla situation aren't really what he practices.

And Mr. Rosenberg is not within miles of Central Avenue so that is why he is not even in a supporting role in this melodrama.

Do you want to come back for round three? I've got to let the ring girls know in the next 5 minutes?; 11/30/2006 12:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear anon @ 11:27,

While I'm waiting to see if there will be a round three with someone else, let me assure you that there is nothing out of order for the Town Council to hire an outside attorney without an RFP. The cost is not excessive today and certainly more of a bargain than the mediator was paid to not hear from the Villages or reach resolution.

I do think that the current hire was not properly marketed to the Public by announcing its point of origin being the Town Council and that the resolution to hire should have been signed as the Town Board. It is interesting to note that neither the Town Supervisor nor the Town Council's 2006 budgets includes money for such hires; which is just one more example that the show of Public Hearings on the budget is, just that, a show.

Five minutes after the budget is passed, budget transfers begin to move money from one department to another and thus examining the budget and speaking on the budget is really futile since it will all quickly change. Think: now you see it now you don't. And this is just one more thing that the "truth-seeking" Town Council knows but will act amazed after they have voted on the transfer.
I don't think that it is worth $475 an hour to track these transfers but a print out of each one transfer chronological order would very enlightening.

Perhaps even more interesting would be to add up all the fees paid to outside law firms and then ask why do we have a Town Attorney?
He, Tim Lewis, is master of nothing, has made several bad calls this year and everywhere we turn we have to call for outside help. This is not to be confused with the Town Attorney's office which contains several hard-working members with specialties.

Knowing this, know too that he is getting an annual raise as per the 2007 budget.; 11/30/2006 12:41 AM
Anonymous said...: The Town Council members should be focusing attention on the library. Why have they failed to provide the town with any oversight? They promised us that the library construction would start in the spring of 2006. Spring passed. No library construction. Summer passed. No library construction. Fall is ending. No library construction. What is going on? I voted for the library construction because I believed that the town knew what they were doing. I was angry at Feiner for opposing the library. He was right. I was wrong.; 11/30/2006 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Everybody hear about the big drug bust in Hartsdale?

http://greenburghtruth.blogspot.com/2006/11/big-drug-bust-in-hartsdale.html; 11/30/2006 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear X635,

I understand that you are not a hunter or in retail as a career.

Nevertheless do you understand what the term "poaching" meaans?

For example, if you stood inside or on the grounds of Barnes & Noble and suggested to their customers that they go to Borders or the new 7/11 (both stores which you wanted to "break" the news about) and told their customers to go to DairyDel or elsewhere, this would be an example of poaching...stealing someone else's customers from their own premises...

Thus when you want to build traffic for your own blog page (for whatever reason: ego, profit, spread the word, public service announcements...) and go to the Supervisor's blog pages (which he pays to maintain) to inform his readers that they can visit you, this is another example of poaching.

"Come on, come onna my house and I will buy you candy" This is an example of something else.

I'm not sure about the internet, but in most states poaching is a crime. Perhaps the Supervisor is too much of a gentleman or perhaps he might perceive a negative reaction from complaining, I don't know. But I am free to speak and the message is that you are similarly free to speak like anyone, long winded or short; just do readers and the Supervisor a favor and drop the promos for yourself. I write this with no authorization, direction or prior knowledge of Mr. Feiner.

"Have you no sense of shame, Mr. McCarthy?"

Worst comes to worst, Greenburgh residents can live without you comments, as they can live without mine.; 11/30/2006 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Hal,

Please stop trying to quash X365 and anyone else with a view other than yours.

I like his insight.; 11/30/2006 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymouse @ 12:43,

Let him direct you and everyone else to his alleged insight on this blog. Do you see his entry that I responded to? (right above mine)

What have you learned about the big drug bust in Hartsdale? All you see is a tease, a come on to visit his blog site. If you want to go, fine. If wants to make a comment on the Feiner site, fine.

But what he has written is only an advertisement for himself and that does not qualify as a "view" or anything substative that I am certainly not trying to quash.

If you think his is the "in"site than by all means go there. But I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that the Feiner blogsite be used for comments on the town, not advertisements for yourself.

Next...; 11/30/2006 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Drug bust. What a scam. Billions of dollars wasted on this decades long futile cat and mouse game. We have tried prohibition. It has failed. The newspapers will be filled with "drug bust" stories 1, 5, 10 years from now if we stay the course of making drugs illegal.; 11/30/2006 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: "The Town Council members should be focusing attention on the library. Why have they failed to provide the town with any oversight?"

It's a Library Board matter, not a Town Council matter. The Town Supervisor recommended to the Library Board that the project have professional oversight, but the Library Board didn't want it.

Concerns about the library fiasco belong on a blog related to the Library Board, not town government which has little control over the Library Board. But since there is no blog, I guess comments should be directed to

Howard Jacobs
President
Library Board of Trustees
hjacobs@greenburghlibrary.org

Susan Wolfert
President
Library Board of Trustees
swolfert@greenburghlibrary.org; 11/30/2006 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: The Town Council members (not Feiner) have neglected their responsibilities of oversight. The library is responsible for library books and the daily operation of the library. The Town Council is responsible for the construction. Feiner warned us about the possibility of library construction problems. The people did not listen. He was right. We were wrong. I voted for the library last year. I thought the Town government knew what they were doing. This is a grave disappointment to me and my family.; 11/30/2006 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: What is happening with the tennis bubble? How come the Town Council can't finalize a great deal that would produce revenue for the town and enhance the enjoyment of tennis players? I understand that the tennis bubble deal included a provision that the courts would be replaced with better courts at no expense to the taxpayers. I cannot believe that any elected representative would say no to this deal.; 12/01/2006 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Why wasn't the tennis bubble approved? Now we know. It's because Rosenberg, this haughty self-styled village advocate and Feiner confidante, has been telling the town board that the Finneran law won't permit the town to let its tennis facilities be open town-wide, and rather than stand up and say that's wrong, which it is, the town has filed legal papers saying Rosenberg is right. It doesn't matter whether Rosenberg is right or wrong, if I'm Sporttime and that's the legal position the town is taking, I couldn't say goodbye to Greenburgh fast enough.
Feiner says we should all blame Bernstein for this. What a crock. That's just Feiner trying to divert attention from himself, his pandering to the villages, and the terrible disservice his playing politics has done to the town's tennis playing community.; 12/01/2006 12:12 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 313 of 313 Newer› Newest»

Supervisor Feiner

Thursday, November 30, 2006

November: Miscellaneous

313 comments:

Contributors

Blog Archive

Links