Sunday, January 21, 2007


Readers of this blog might want to read todays Journal News (Business section). An article, which is on their web site ( Housing.
School districts in New Jersey are experiencing similar problems to the concerns articuled by Edgemont residents -- high taxes. Residential developments mean more students to educate and more expenses for school districts.
A number of New Jersey communities have approved zoning restrictions allowing for age restrictions on residential developments. Housing can only be built for seniors. Other communities restrict housing to studio apartments, one bedroom apartments. This enables school districts to expand the tax base without the expense of higher enrollment in the schools.
The question: If the Town Board proceeds with a moratorium on residential development should we exempt senior citizen housing or studio apartments from the moratorium? A moratorium on development is not a permanent ban on development. Commercial development will generate more taxes but it will also generate much more traffic, which also has been a concern of many people.
I am asking this question hoping that we can have a dialogue and a disussion about this important issue. I am open minded on this topic.


Anonymous said...

I don't want lots of traffic. Don't want my taxes to go up. I read the article in the Journal News. This is an option that should be discussed.

Anonymous said...

Paul, why is it that in Edgemont you think it's worth considering allowing adult/senior residential construction, but you give no such consideration to places like East Irvington.

Instead, in East Irvington, the town is being asked to take another 16 acres of open space, adding to the 275 acres of open space already there, and have it dedicated as parkland so these types of residences could never be constructed.

The answer is that East Irvington knows that senior citizens are not the kind of voters who generally vote for school budgets, and the Irvington School District doesn't need any more "no" voters.

Therefore, it's no more in East Irvington's interest to have senior housing than it is to have residential construction where children are likely to live.

So why is this idea of yours okay for Edgemont, but not for East Irvington? Is it because the Irvington school district has a lot of village voters you can pander to?

hal samis said...

I have argued against a moratorium:

1) Because it is one road specific,
Central Avenue, and therefore the imputed benefits accrue to just one area of Town. While no one would dare institute another Town-wide moratorium so soon after the last.

2) Because it is type of building class specific, just residential.

3) Because it forces owners to subordinate their property rights while still having to pay the entity responsible the taxes which continue. In other words, to accept the "limiting" of their property's fullest potential without any compensation. And this includes the moratorium period while the down-zoning is being "considered".

4) Because moratoriums get extended and this one is clearly headed toward forever with a new townwide comprehensive plan being its apex.

5) Because it is also possible to effect zoning law changes without having a moratorium. Think innocent until proven guilty: A mortarium wants to punish a owner, a neighbor, a corporate citizen, not only BEFORE a crime is committed, but also before a crime is even defined.

And I acknowledge that there are reasons being put forward by Edgemont. However it is not for the fewest citizens, with the least votes, to solve Edgemont's problem but for those within the "stricken" area to cope with the success of their creation. Today, the self-serving "it was beauty that killed the beast" explanation would be upstaged by the thousands of law suits lodged against Carl Denham.

In other blogs and situations, the idea of creating tailored Park Districts and Sidewalk Districts has been discussed with the idead to make those who benefit, bear the costs. Edgemont is already such a District, being not a Park or Sidewalk but a School District. As such it is the laboratory for the ramifications of the pending A/B issues. However, even though Central Avenue, a State Road, passes through Edgemont, even though the abutting property is located within Edgemont, in neither situation does Edgemont OWN any of the property at which the Moratorium is aimed; property which will be devalued. Simply put, residential, retail and office uses are already permitted; removing one allowable development possibility does not make the property more valuable.

There are a number of free economy alternatives which would at least provide some relief to the property owner. Such a solution is age exclusion by keeping those of breeding age from occupancy. Buyer beware warns would-be purchasers that they are forbidden to sell their units to those younger than the age restriction. Another is to limit the sizes of the individual units by a combination of actual room sizes and number of rooms -- and a prohibition against merging units. Or units cannot be occupied by more than ? persons.
This would pretty much close the door to the new undesirables: parents with school age children.

And there is another yet unmentioned alternative. That is to give something back to the owner who has been deprived of the residential development option. To provide him with greater than existing allowable devdlopment rights for the remaining uses. For example, more bulk, more height, less parking, setbacks or even reduced property assessment. Remove the residential development option and be prespared to hire more help for the Town's certiorary attorney.

However, as a realist, even though the above alternatives still rankle because of associations of "doing things for the good of the state" even though "individuals" not populations suffer the result, I am prepared to accept (for a little as that has value other than intellectually) any of them in lieu of an open-ended or renewable moratorium. Thus, if the Town were to draft a non-renewable moratorium limited to four months duration with "time is of the essence" language to create legislation to make these alternatives law, then I would be comfortable with this as a practical and reasonable means to resolve the matter.

hal samis said...

Saw the East Irvington comment after I finished.

My answer is that if Edgemont has a "world class" school system already, wants to preserve it by warding off additional enrollment (because they are already full to bursting and new plant costs money) from kids accompanying new residential development; then go with the development that produces few, if any, new kids.

But nooooo!

Edgemont, without any existing Senior housing voting down budgets, is already chopping away at their school budget before anyone read today's article. Of course, I'll allow that it had been discussed in trade publications for some time.

So what the anonymous blogger is really saying is that, surprise, with or without more enrollment school budgets rise and that voters don't like it. Ain't it a shame when everyone doesn't agree. So let's not only only keep out more kids but also those who may disagree with us.

In fact, only people exactly like us should be allowed to live in Edgemont uber ailles. If they can just get free of Greenburgh and run the place like civic leaders want...

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Town could sell 1/2 of the land in East Irvington and use those funds to buy the Edgemont property for park land. Irvington has already had 275 acres purchased for it by the town -- this is so little to ask for,

not so samis said...

Who says Edgemont doesn't have any senior housing?

Edgemont not only has its own nursing home, but there are plenty of seniors living in the co-ops, condos and rentals along Central Avenue.

When Friends of Feiner tried to defeat Edgemont's school budget two years ago, they hired a van to transport Edgemont's nursing home residents to and from the polls.

The question being raised, however, was not whether additional senior housing was warranted along Central Avenue, but rather, why it wasn't being considered for any of those large tracts of undeveloped land in East Irvington.

Why is it okay to require Edgemont taxpayers to pay for the cost of acquiring and maintaining parkland in East Irvington, which benefits the Irvington School District, but it is not okay for Edgemont merely to ask for a restriction on further multidwelling development in an area that has hundreds of such units already?

Paul Feiner said...

Friends of Paul Feiner never organized an effort to defeat the school budget. Some of my supporters have supported school budgets, others have objected to school budgets. That's what democracy is about.
I have never and would never organize an effort to encourage voters to vote no on a school budget. The school districts are independent of the town. The school board members are independently elected.

Anonymous said...

The person from Edgemont who was in charge of Feiner's re-election campaign in 2005 was co-chair of the effort to defeat Edgemont's school budget that year.

He was pictured standing next to Feiner at Crane Pond on Feiner's campaign website in 2005.

This same individual obtained from Feiner a list of Edgemont voters and the name of the person the Feiner campaign uses to make automatd "robo" calls to Edgemont voters. He was also responsible for writing and sending to Edgemont voters a letter containing false and misleading statements about teacher salaries, among other things and, when confronted with the true facts, refused to issue a correction.

This individual did not act alone. One of Feiner's paid volunteers operated a website that year that mocked by name individual Edgemont residents who spoke out in favor of the school budget.

The website was, at least for a while, linked at Feiner's direction, to the town's own website.

When Feiner's own supporters objected to Feiner campaign workers interfering in Edgemont's budget vote, he promised to record for them his own "robo" call telling Edgemont voters to vote in favor of the budget. But at the 11th hour, when it was too late to get someone else to do it, Feiner backed out.

Few Edgemont residents will ever forget the role that Feiner and his campaign volunteers played that year in trying to defeat Edgemont's school budget.

Fortunately for Edgemont, their efforts ended in failure and the budget re-vote was approved by the largest margin in Edgemont history.

Anonymous said...

Everyone lost --

1. It cost the school the money for a second vote.

2. Undoubtely many of the elderly were stressed by the "Feiner" message that higher taxes would mean the end of the nursing home -- and where would they go.

3. Parents were stressed by the thuoght of a budget being voted down.

Anonymous said...

THis blog should not be used as a forum for inaccurate and misleading comments.

hal samis said...

Dear Not So Samis Said,

No one has said that Edgemont is Senior free. The idea behind this senior housing is not to replicate a nursing home, assisted living, or aging. It is to allow the development of residential, if that is what the property owner decides is in his best interest. The word Senior in this context refers to those of an age not likely to be planning families and thus not a threat to school enrollment.

Your statement that there are plenty of seniors living in these residential units on Central Avenue is my point -- that these units do not house as many students as others would like believed.

Whereas I agree that East Irvington is (to borrow a phrase) already at capacity from Parkland, there is one BIG difference. The property along Central Avenue is privately owned and I maintain that the protection of private property is a fundamental right in America. That is why it is not ok to find ways to devalue or otherwise interfere with the lawful use of private land.

And, I have made it quite clear that creating any more dedicated Parkland in East Irvington is not something I favor. In fact, I have argued for the Town to sell the latest 16 acre parcel which is under discussion.

Anonymous said...

Hal: The E Irvington parkland dedication has the support of the entire Town Board.

Anonymous said...

Hal, the property in East Irvington was once all privately owned -- by the Unification Church. The town purchased it in order to protect the Irvington School Disrict, and Edgemont taxpayers were required to foot the bill.

Why isn't that fair?

Okay, so maybe it wasn't fair. But why then is it okay for the town to acquire private property at millions of dollar sof taxpayer expense in East Irvington, but it is not okay for Edgemont residents to request at no taxpayer expense a zoning change for private property on Central Avenue?

And why is it okay for the town to ignore senior housing needs in East Irvington (assuming there's in fact a market for senior housing there or anywhere else in unincorporated Greenburgh), but not okay for Edgemont to do likewise?

You say protecting private property is a fundamental right in America. Sorry to disappoint you Hal, but in America private property is generally subject to zoning, and zoning ordinances are not carved in stone, but are subject to change.

If you're looking to find some private property without zoning, I suggest you check with your local broker in Wyoming, North Dakota or perhaps Montana.

Giddeyup cowboy.

Anonymous said...

To Giddyup Cowboy,

The reason that Hal spews forth vehemently against anything Edgemont and ignorew the E. Irvingont land grab, unless prodded, is that he is Feiner's supporter and Feiner is willing to help Irvington but not Edgemont. It is that simple.

hal samis said...

Dear Children,

I spew against East Irvington on the blog entry which was titled something like "16 acres of Parkland, East Irvington". Go there and then see which student, Edgemont or Irvington, is being let out of school early?

An old habit of mine, responding to the issues where they are raised. It also illustrates that Edgemont readers don't look elsewhere on theis blog, being only concerned about their backyard.

And why is it so hard to understand the difference between land in East Irvington which is Town owned and land along Central Avenue which is privately owned.

And yes there are zoning laws, but not everywhere as has been noted. We are used to zoning laws, believing that a home, a gas station, a store, an office building should not be located alongside each other. In the private property model, you who find it objectionable would not choose to live on this block. That is your right to choose. And it would be just as American to purchase one of these properties and change its use. However, people who do not live on this block, do not own the property and just drive by on their way to somewhere else, should not be the ones to control the land use. Either move or drive another route.

And "spews vehemently" is just a propoganda gimmick of the anonymous writer. In addition to property rights, there is also a little matter of free speech and expresssing a different opinion. People wearing masks would like to rob contrarians of this right.

Finally, go for the zoning change. If successful, you will have exacted your pound of flesh. But, also in American is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Punishing the property owner by a moratorium is punishing him before the crime. The hypocrisy that I see in this situation is that these same registered, liberal Democrats who argue for a moratorium, would be the first to argue against extending the police state, i.e. have taken an anti-Patriot act stance (as have I) but when the same issues are wrapped up in the benevolent term, moratorium and it would appear to benefit them, why then it is alright to endorse this version. It is true that it is possible that a moratorium could allow someone to get in before the door swings shut just as it is true that acts of terrorism could be plotted more easily without the Patriot Act. However, liberal society argues that it is the greater good to maintain Democratic principles rather than restort to fascism to safeguard them. It is equally true that a moratorium, itself before any zoning change, is a punishment. After all, to an owner, what is the difference between not be able to build residential during the moratorium and not being able to build residential after the moratorium? The subtlety is that the zoning change makes it LEGAL whereas the moratorium is the bowing to the pressure of the vigilantes, the Ox Bow incident relocated to Central Avenue. See I brought it back from
Wyoming and North Dakota.

So, if you read me blogging against Irvington, go to the appropriate entry, located in January or December. If you want to read me blogging against Edgemont, then you're in the right place. On both entries I am consistent and I wager that at both locations, there is a lot that I have written that does not serve Mr. Feiner well.

Finally, as Edgemont leaders well know, my stance on this issue is not just about property rights; not just about real estate (an area of expertise) but also contains a smidge of payback for these same leaders ignoring MY "pet" peeve, the Library expansion. Although the problems were apparent to them as well, they were content to flush the $20 million ($30+ with interest) project down the toilet because it did not fit their program needs -- to get rid of Feiner whereas Feiner had the good sense to take the risky but correct side of the expansion issue. Thus the ECC knew that to question the library would be to make Feiner stronger and thus... Now as the Library project gets mired in problems of their own making, their early-on stake is becoming a liability in more ways than one.

Anonymous said...

Hal, no one will convince you otherwise, but enacting a moratorium in contemplation of a zoning change, which is a fairly common occurrence in New York, is just not quite the same as Congress passing the Patriot Act.

You also write:

"However, people who do not live on this block, do not own the property and just drive by on their way to somewhere else, should not be the ones to control the land use. Either move or drive another route."

That's a much more interesting comment. Are you suggesting, however inadvertently, that control of such land use should belong to the people who live in the two-square mile area known as Edgemont, as opposed to those who live in the 19-square mile area of unincorporated Greenburgh?

If you are, then I'm sure those advocating incorporating Edgemont as a village will be pleased. There a number of Edgemont residents who resent it that zoning and planning decisions affecting Edgemont are made by people who live in places like East Irvington.

Or are you suggesting that only the people who live along the Central Avenue corridor should be the ones to decide what changes, if any, should be made to the town's zoning code. If you are, then you are ignoring the fact that zoning codes are enacted and revised to reflect a balance between the rights of property owners (some of whom may be developers) and the rights of the community at large, taking into account the demands on the local infracture (roads, etc.), the schools, and municipal services.

By your own admission, none of this matters. Instead, you say your views are shaped by the grudge you bear as a result of certain unnamed "Edgemont leaders" ignoring some pet peave of yours about the library.

That doesn't give me or anyone else much reason to take you seriously on either issue.

hal samis said...

You're right, you didn't convince me.

Moratoriums elsewhere doesn't convince me either.
Monkey see, monkey do. And I don't have the time to follow these events as they occur elsewhere.
It only says that New York State should be lobbying for government subsidies to support a growing industry, sheep raising.

Now, the next thing you have done is buying yourself a platform to speak supposedly from your two interpretations of what I wrote.
Neither of your raison d'etre comes close to what I wrote.

I have clearly conveyed that control over land is control by those who OWN the property. Not the neighbors, not the neighborhood, not the civic associations, not the municipal government.

In debate, what you have done is construct a "straw man" argument. A stand-in for the issue but created solely because it is easily disposed of. Addressing the actual issue is more difficult so you ignore it.

If Edgemont incorporates to make its own decisions, that does not change my point of view. It merely substitutes one governing body for another, neither of which are the property owner.

And, without getting into a long online debate, something that Ayn Rand "railed" about was the idea of
"rights of the community" as you would phrase it. However, she would say that people, in looking out for their own interests, are really also looking out for the community. The property owner, by looking our for his own interest, benefits from good roads, good schools, good municipal services and thus will want them to exist. The property owner just doesn't need others, having no economic stake in his property, to determine what is "good" for his best interest, like Edgemont leaders determining that he really doesn't want to build multi-family housing.
The property owner is willing to pay his share of taxes to support roads, schools, services but his share is not the sacrifice of his own property rights.

All of this model, as I acknowledge belongs to Ayn Rand. She had no involvement with Edgemont, with Edgemont leaders, with the Library expansion. All of this model precedes by decades my issues. Thus, when I make the acknowledgement that there are other bodies in the room, that does not reduce to "grudge", gripe yes. The thinking was done before me by another totally uninvolved with these local matters. I am merely applying it to the issue at hand and doing it honestly and in the open.

You promote that what I freely admit is guilt by assignment, while you hide behind anonymous and conclude what I say doesn't count.

What you put on the table is that because of my voluntary disclosure of my "peeves" is that it is rational to throw the dishes out with the dishwater. While not stating this was the motivation, which it isn't which I thought I made clear but you choose to ignore, the underlying issues still remain for those with open minds.

Your last sentence sums it up. In the world that Ayn Rand fought against, there was always some character who projected his opinion upon others, someone who would speak for the crowd: "that doesn't me or anyone else the reason..."
Stay with the "me" unless you care to list the other anonymice you think you speak for.

A moratorium is an invention. It exists. It can be used or not used.
Just because it exists is not itself the reason to use it.

A bomb is an invention. It exists. It can be used or not used.
Just because it exists is not itself the reason to use it.

You'll say one has nothing to do with other and I'll say it does.
Got anything else, besides milk?

Anonymous said...

It is no surprise that Hal Samis and Ayn Rand are soul-mates.

For those not familiar with Ms. Rand, the following excerpt is from an article about her that was published in 2001:

"Rand was a novelist and self-styled thinker who promoted a philosophy she titled "Objectivism." She wrote two major novels and a whole slew of minor works of both fiction and nonfiction, but her major impact has not been literary; rather, social.

"I can sum up what's wrong with Objectivism in one sentence: Objectivism is a philosophy by, and for, the sociopathic at heart. It is not even a true philosophy, but a method of justification, from which people can draw excuses to support their actions.

"Greed is good"
What is Objectivism, exactly? It's a philosophy that places human self-worth and achievement above all else -- including, apparently, sanity. The much-quoted Gordon Gekko of Oliver Stone's insightful Wall Street summed her philosophy in the simplest terms possible: "Greed is good. Greed works." Good, sure, but for whom? And who does greed work for, and against? Rand writes tracts to excuse greed for the ones who wield it, and also provides them with a convenient scapegoat.

After all, Ayn Rand did it all the time. She was the textbook student of her own philosophy. She carried on an affair for many years with a younger man while her husband slid into alcoholism. She ostracized anyone who disagreed with her, branded anyone who took exception to her personal behavior as a traitor, and so on. People who say that we should separate Ayn Rand the writer/philosopher from Ayn Rand the flawed human being do not seem to understand that Rand's philosophy and writing were direct extensions of who she was as a person: embittered, paranoid, self-important, and insanely jealous of anyone who was awarded merit she felt they didn't deserve."

Sorry Hal. Your admitted Ayn Rand obsession underscores why you really can't be taken seriously by anyone.

hal samis said...

Golly, you googled Ayn Rand and concluded that she is not a woman whose life matched the high standards set by your mommie, dearest.

But with your free hand, perhaps you want also to google George Washington, Freud, Einstein, Babe Ruth, Karl Marx, Peter Jennings, John Paul Sartre, Thomas Jefferson, Jack Welch, Henry Ford, William Sherman, Luther, Brigham Young,
Picasso, Beethoven, George Patton, Elvis Presley, Hemingway, Mickey Mantle, Martin Luther King, Bryant Gumbel, Jane Fonda, Jerry Falwell, Jane Goodall, Isadora Duncan, Malcolm X, John D. Rockefellar, Thomas Paine, Gandhi...

Pssst! Wanna read some real dirt?

Or, maybe it's as simple as: successful women threaten some bloggers.

In keeping with tradition, Anonymous writes about an article written by ______________?

However why all the investment in debunking me with the instructions that I "can't be taken seriously by anyone". Perhaps if you can knock off Ayn Rand, then you can dispose of me too.

With all your research, did you find anything to contradict what I proposed?

While just how many credits do you still need to graduate from the Joe McCarthy School of Character Assassination? I can say this because I use my own name and sit behind what I type.

All you have left, instead of actually countering my arguments is to steer the focus away from center: the technique of those who lack answers and. While you're still on Rand alert, make sure that none of her books are available at Edgemont Schools because you wouldn't want anyone's kids to fall into the same trap.

But, ahead of the tomorrow's Town Board meeting, let me throw out these points...

If Edgemont leaders were of such high moral scruples, at least higher than mine or Ms Rand,

If Edgemont leaders were genuinely concerned about over-population in their school district,

If Edgemont leaders wanted to be fair, solve the problem and not just pick on the the group with the fewest votes or,

If Edgemont leaders weren't so concerned with who they might have to face in supermarket aisles,

If Edgemont leaders weren't afraid of upsetting the subdivision plans of its own residents,


Then all Edgemont leaders have to do is EXTEND THE MORATORIUM TO INCLUDE ALL OF EDGEMONT and if the rest of Edgemont represents no problem, then there wouldn't be any objection.

If you want to catch rats, don't set out just one trap.

But Edgemont leaders don't have the balls.

And Edgemont leaders would have to look their angry neighbors in the eye and Edgemont leaders don't really represent all of Edgemont so all they can do is point the finger at others who are also without a face, the LLCs and the Incs.

Finally, you don't have to go back to 2001 to read about Ayn Rand. There's an article in last Sunday's (or the week before) New York Times entertainment section. The article details the difficult journey that "Atlas Shrugged" has had in making it to the big screen. Apparently it is a little more complex an "ism" to explain than the article Anonymous found on google. However, the Anonymous of this blog could do the producers a big solid and point out that there is no audience, only one person, Hal Samis, interested in seeing the movie -- and he'll probably wait for it on dvd.

Who is John Galt? No one from Edgemont.

Anonymous said...

If the EDGENOT folks are really that concerned about additional school age children, just make a call to the County Executive's Office, ask to speak to either Susan Toulchin or Larry Schwartz and ask to be actively considered for some of that Andy Spano style Sex Offender housing.

As far as I am concerned, that will meet a town wide purpose, and really show that the EDGENOT civic leaders are not NIMBY crybabies.

Anyone need a dime for a call?

hal samis said...

Dear Anonymous,

When did you last use a phone booth?
Pay phones now charge 50 cents in Greenburgh and White Plains but only 25 cents in Scarsdale, abutting Edgemont. But who in their right mind would be seen using a pay phone in Scarsdale?
I don't know what it costs to make a call from the VSD, but maybe you need to up your offer from a dime to four bits.

One Street moratoriums allowed in white plains said...

Over 20 years ago an article in the ny times entitled

IN WESTCHESTER AND CONNECTICUT; Moratoriums Stir Debate in Westchester

Published: August 10, 1986, the following appeared:

Mount Kisco and Port Chester each enacted six-month construction moratoriums on July 21. The Village of Ossining is halfway through a six-month moratorium, and Tarrytown has made a third 45-day extension to a moratorium enacted in December that was supposed to last for only four months. New Castle is debating a moratorium, and Cortland has had a few early discussions on one.

Bedford, Yorktown and North Salem all had moratoriums last year, and Pleasantville and White Plains had moratoriums that each covered only one street.

Anonymous said...

I think that given how important and unusual Central Ave, a one street moratorium is justified.

Dont let Samis and Feiner (the Friend of developers and their attorneys) talk anyone out of it.

Anonymous said...

Life would be simpler here in Greenburgh if the entire unincorporated area were split into three incorporated villages.

Anonymous said...

and what would the 3 be??

Anonymous said...

If the town is split into 3 villages your taxes would go up. Compare taxes for village residents (basic municipal services) to taxes for unincorporated Greenburgh residents. We pay less and get more.

Anonymous said...

If unincorporated Greenburgh is split up into individual villages, taxes do not necessarily have to go up.

To the contrary, unlike Greenburgh's existing villages who historically have never been able to cooperate with each other except when it comes to taking advantage of the town's unincorporated area, these new villages can cooperate with each other and together can purchase municipal services on a shared basis, most likely from the town itself.

In that way, these new villages can obtain local control over zoning and planning and at the same time achieve the local representation they need to be placed on an even playing field with the town's existing villages.

But the argument that taxes would have to go up is not valid.

Anonymous said...

I think anon at 9:53 has a great idea. The planning and zoning boards are overloaded; we need to divide up the work. Local people have a better idea of what is OK. The police etc stay in place, just the cost allocated out.

Less fighting, more local control.

Feiner hung by his ignorance said...

Last night, Bob Bernstein of Edgemont, in arguing in favor of the proposed moratorium established that 32% of Edgemont's school kids came from multi-family residences on Central Avenue and that Edgemont had its fair share of these lower assessed developments. Bernstein also made the point that the Town Board had bought 100s of acres of parkland in East Irvington which could never be developed and thus saved the taxpayers of the Irvington school district millions for classrooms that never have to be built.Mr. Feiner interrupted Bernstein to protest that Bob was ignoring the large Avalon 2 multi family development in unincorporated Greenburgh/ Bernstein, as they say in chess, employed a crusher by reminding Feiner that not one child from Avalon will be attending Irvington schools becuse Avalon is in the Elmsford school district. Although I think he opposes capital punishment, Feiner hung himself by his unawareness of this. I dont know which is scarier - Feiner's self immolation or his ignorance.

Anonymous said...

I watched the same program and im sure Feiner is wondering why he is tasting shoe leather - its his old problem - foot in mouth disease.

Feiner needs a map said...

Ha! I'll bet that Bernstein brand shoe leather is stamped "made in Elmsford."

Anonymous said...

Why do the "polite, respect" rules only apply to Feiner supporters?

Two Face Feiner said...

Pretends to support Edgemont -- but only cares about developer

1. Lets watch his campaign financing forms VERY closely.

2. Why no low income/elderly on Town owned property -- like Waterwheel.

3. Why does town pay millions to protect Irvington Schools?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Bernstein and his Edgemont pals:

What happens when you shoot yourselves in the foot? It hurts, that's what.
Weren't you the same individuals who spoke out against the WestHelp Partnership, demanding that the Town Board go back on their votes, so you could take the money but not the homeless?
And aren't you now the same individuals calling for a moratorium on RESIDENTIAL HOUSING in your little neck of the woods -- and pressuring the Town Board to make a hasty decision? Horrors -- a senior citizen housing complex and now this?? And 32 percent of the students in Edgemont actually live in apartments? Horrors. We wouldn't want that, now, would we?
Meanwhile, some of your representatives have had the unmitigated gall to call Mayfair Knollwood residents nimbys, "greedy," and countless other names. You have looked down your noses at that neighborhood, reassuring the world that you're much more forgiving and liberal than the folks over there.
Sure -- the pot calls the kettle black.

hal samis said...

Dear Betsy Brown:

Did these one street moratoriums occur on mixed use streets? Did these moratoriums occur against only one of the permitted uses?

Do some of the places mentioned actually have more than one street?
In 1986?

Ignore the second paragraph. I am beneath that.

God, the online search capability is awesome. Now all I have to do is hack the NY Times database and find who searched Betsy Brown.
And to think that Feiner shares that shoe with Betsy and Tag too.

But here's a simpler search topic.


If Edgemont is concerned about rising enrollment at their schools and the ounce of prevention is to stop residential development along Central Avenue as the prescribed cure, then why don't they prescribe the new, improved version available in the two ounce size? This is the total cure and available with just a few keystrokes added to the existing moratorium resolution: a moratorium on ALL residential development in Edgemont. Why should this present a problem to anyone, if the moratorium is only for six months?

No new homes built ANYWHERE in Edgemont, no new stress upon the school system. But wait, what about the existing owner/residents. By Edgemont's own numbers, 32% of the enrollment comes from Central Avenue while 68% comes from the rest of Edgemont. It seems that Edgemont's active procreators don't live on Central Avenue at all but in private single family homes elsewhere where the bedroom walls don't have strangers listening on the other side. So, if they're worried about those with the 32% sperm content, why let ignore those fellas wiggling away unregulated in the part of the District where the bigger __icks who birth the 68% enrollment reside? If Edgemont's alpha males don't grab at the contraceptive that offers 100% protection, then stop complaining about getting knocked up.

And anyone in marketing knows about the heavy half theory. 20% of the market buys 80% of the product. Thus, why waste your ad dollars (it costs more to reach more homes) on the 80% that only buys 20% of the product? In Edgemont, that means why go after 32% of the market when for the same cost you can go after the 68% share?

Or more to the point, if you are going after the 32% share, how can you justify excluding the 68% share, especially when it costs you nothing extra in your marketing budget.

While even more graphically, if you worry about convicted sex offenders striking again, then why not worry about the part of town which has the better track record in reproducing?

If Edgemont is so concerned about the relationship between residential inventory, past, present and future, upon school enrollment and they find that there is a relationship between the number of homes and the number of children enrolled in school, then they should plug all the holes allowing new homes while they're out busy studying zoning alternatives.

Otherwise some people will get the idea that this is about socioeconomic status (SES) and that it's really about who's sitting at the next desk whentheir precious little johnny learns to read.

And, how does "potential" Central Avenue residential development in HARTSDALE concern the Edgemont School District?

None of this logic can be traced back to Ayn Rand, so have a good time.

Betsy Brown asks: said...

Question for Mr. Samis: If the moratorium on residential development covered all of edgemont, would you support it?

hal samis said...

Dear Betsy,

I already said yes in an earlier comment on January 23.

"If Edgemont wants to silence me..."

Anonymous said...

Those angry Mayfair Knollwood folks just don't get it.

Unlike civic leaders in Mayfair Knollwood and East Irvington, Edgemont's leaders were not asking the town to spend millions of town dollars to support their school district. Indeed, they didn't ask for a dime of town money, from WestHelp or from anywhere else. Nor were they making a NIMBY argument.

No, the point that Bernstein and his Edgemont colleagues were making was that the statistics show that at 32% of its housing stock, Edgemont is supporting far more than its fair share of multifamily housing when compared to other school districts in both the town and the county.

His point was that adding more such housing right now along Central Avenue would burden the schools, the taxpayers and the local streets, which were never intended to bear the load required to drop off and pick up all the kids that have to get to school every day.

Given the millions of dollars that have been illegally squandered on the Valhalla School District, where two thirds of the residents don't even live in Greenburgh, and the millions of town dollars that have been used to subsidize the Irvington School District, Edgemont's request sounds awfully reasonable.

Feiner is the problem said...

Amen. Now if we can just get Feiner to stop taking developer's calls......and money.

hal samis said...

Hey anon,

check your playbook.
32% of the school enrollment.

How could Edgemont leaders argue that it is illegal for the Town to use A budget money on their School District and at the same time protest the transfer of revenue to another School District (VSD)? this is not an entree to the VSD issue; it is only intended to point our that they are being consistent in not asking for Town money. Don't convert that into sainthood.

Anonymous said...

I would like the letter the town recd from the developer on the town web page. where is it?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 5:19

Edgemont is not asking town for money (we know better, we would never get it).

Valhalla is demanding it.