Saturday, January 06, 2007


Momentum is building for the acquisition of Dromore Road property as open space. The CAC voted to recommend to the town that every effort be made to assist the Greenburgh Nature Center in acquiring the Dromore Road property. While small this parcel is a link between two larger open spaces, the Nature Center and Edgemont High School campus. When the town established its open space plan, the importance to local fauna of connecting open space was recognized as an element in identifying land to be acquired. The CAC also pointed out that the land would provide direct access from the Edgemont High School to the Nature Center. The high school and the nature center run joint programs.
Earlier this week Legislator Tom Abinanti expressed interest in working to persuade county officials to share in the expense of this acquisition. A number of Edgemont residents have also contacted me supporting this open space acquisition.


Anonymous said...

Why do you only support groups in favor?

I think today's Scarsdale Inquiror had a much more balanced approach. Feiner, you are not helping.

edgemont voter said...

Thank you Mr. Feiner for advocating the preservation of open space in Edgemont.

hal samis said...

I'm a night owl so thinking after 11:15 is not a problem.

What I'm thinking tonight is not only how "essential" this piece is now being characterized as for the GNC (not the vitamin chain) but also that perhaps someone over at the GNC or at the CAC or in Edgemont was sleeping while it was being sold. The sale must have occurred after 11:15.

With the long stated hunger for acquiring open space and the recent desire to stop residential development, how did this parcel get sold to developers? Perhaps the Edgemont leaders, instead of seeking to steal the rights of private property owners should have done a little homework and looked for ways to acquire a little private property of their own.

Maybe even starting earlier in the day when they were more awake.

But let's say it was Samis' fault because he hates Edgemont. Or maybe people are getting comfortable with the idea that the Edgemont civic leaders (you know the names, you see them quoted in the Inquirer all the time) ain't so bright and know-it-all; that it could be just that nobody ever had the guts to challenge their version of events.

If the parcel is not really so contiguous to the GNC (hey, neither are Ardsley and Elmsford), it sounds like it could make a great location for the new Edgemont Village Hall.

Anonymous said...

"Edgemont Village Hall"

I can't wait for the day!

Feiner isn't helping said...

Momentum building? Not if it's based on utterly false premises promoted by Feiner and the CAC.

Anyone familiar with the site knows it's not needed as a link between the high school and the Nature Center and if acquired, wouldn't be a link anyway.

First of all, apparently unbeknownst to CAC members who've probably never set foot in the area, there are already plenty of beautiful wooded trails linking the high school and the Nature Center. These trails are adjacent to the high school buildings themselves.

There is therefore no need for any separate access at the far end of the high school playing fields where this property shares a border and where hardly no one ever goes except to chase a ball.

Second, even if the property were acquired, it wouldn't provide much access in any event. The nature center property is separated from that part of Dromore Road by a 10-foot high brick wall. To get access, one would have to walk along Dromore Road, past the Monastery, to reach the Nature Center property.

Anyone on the high school property wanting to reach the Nature Center grounds would choose the existing Nature Center trails than this roundabout way.

Edgemont very much needs to keep this property from being acquired. But these kinds of ill-informed, self-serving, self-promoting press releases don't help.

And where's the momentum? According to Feiner's press release, this CAC meeting took place back on December 18, right about when Feiner was first being criticized for launching this publicity campaign for himself in the first place.

So Feiner's releasing this news now, after he's already been criticized for doing this, shows that he either hasn't learned from ths criticism, is stubborn and doens't get it, or just enjoys spitting in Edgemont's eye.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Mr. Feiner can do nothing right, in the eyes of anonymous bloggers. If Mr. Feiner was against the acquisition of this land in Edgemont, the anonymous bloggers would be calling him all sorts of names. Thankfully, he is leading the effort to preserve this property. You claim he's talking too much. As a taxpayer I applaud Mr. Feiner's decision to keep the community informed. I also appreciate his dedication to open space preservation. Self appointed leaders who are "legends in your own mind" don't speak for me.

Anonymous said...

Today's Journal News speaks of Edgemont's most outspoken advocate (arguably) being concerned about the impact of development in the area due to school overcrowding.

Here's an idea, why don't we move the WESTHELP facility in that area? There are so few developable pieces in Edgement so this would be a good opportunity so make sure that Edgemenot steps up for their fair share. We have heard so many times from the EDGEMONT CIVIC LEADERS that this WESTHELP housing is not a NIMBY issue. Actions speak louder than words.

While you are at it, why not ask Andy Spano if he would like to site a sexual offender housing facility there too, because as we have learned from the EDGEMONT CIVIC LEADERS there is no problem from having those units near your boundries.

I would like to hear Edgemont's most outspoken advocate (arguably) opinion on this proposal.

Are you ready to enter the intregrity challege on this or do we wait for your silence like the majority of the Town Board?

hal samis said...

Naughty, Naughty, Mr. Feiner.
to 11:55
You didn't learn from anonynmous blog criticism.
It can be proven that when bloggers type with a paper bag over their head, the heat build-up can harm brain cells.
Especially those that have to do with rational argument.
If bloggers are so certain they are right, why don't they sign their name?

Anonymous said...

The reason the westhelp wont get moved there, or the sex offenders, si that the land is too valuable. As to emininet domain, not only is it difficult, but it is done at the fmv. That is also the reason it wont become parkland, unless others raise money for it.

But if you are so anxious to move those facilities, the Town does own vacant land, the Water wheel property, in unincorporated Greenburgh. That is town owned.

Anonymous said...

Feiner may be talking moratorium, but he's already selling Edgemont out.

According to today's Journal News, Feiner thinks it's okay to compromise by allowing condos to be built on some of the 2.3 acres, while protecting the rest.

Remember Taxter Ridge? When the Irvington School District needed the town to protect 200 acres from being developed, Feiner didn't argue there for any compromise.

Nope, all 200 acres had to be bought. Edgemont taxpayers had to foot their share of the bill, but residents of the villages, including Irvington, did not.

Paul Feiner said...

I will never sell out Edgemont or the rest of the town. Iindicated to the reporter that I would only support a compromise if the nature center felt that the compromise would not harm the nature center. If the nature center feels that the acquisition of the entire property is important to the future of the center, I will support the entire acquisition. One suggestion that was made to me, for example, would be to allow the developer to build one home (not condo's on the property) and for the developer to donate the rest of the property to the nature center as open space. A single home had been located on the property in the past. Perhaps, this kind of compromise is something the nature center and edgemont could live with. Perhaps, a developer could also live with this. I don't know. But- I'd like to explore all options. I like to solicit as much input from the public as possible - feel that the end result is a smarter, better thought out decision.

Anonymous said...


The GNC is not edgemont. Just becasue they may nor may not support a compromise does not mean YOU ARE NOT SELLING OUT EDGEMONT.

Anonymous said...

Paul - It doesn't sound like you've got Edgemont's interests in mind when the only meetings you talk about holding are between the developer's lawyer, the Nature Center and the town.

The Nature Center's board hasn't yet decided whether this is property the Nature Center even wants, and you are on record as opposing any acquisition of open space by the town if the villages have to pay their fair share of it.

And you're already talking about the developer donating a portion of the land and building on the rest of it.

I don't see anyone at these meetings you propose looking out for Edgemont's interests.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if you'd focus your attention on getting that moratorium passed.

Paul Feiner said...

I intend to aggressively pursue the moratorium on residential development on Central Ave. I will bring the moratorium up at Wednesday's meeting and will try to persuade the other Board members to schedule a hearing by mid February. I am concerned about the impact residential development on Central Ave will have on the Edgemont school district.

Anonymous said...

Good, but why wait until mid-February. Time is of the essence here. Please put the hearing on the moratorium for January 24.

Paul Feiner said...

One of the council members expressed concern about the legality of a moratorium only Central Ave. He brought this up at a recent work session. I want to give the town attorney time to provide members of the Board with a legal opinion that a moratorium would withstand court challenges. If a hearing can be scheduled sooner I would support that.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like stalling.

If the town had a sufficient basis years ago to create a separate zoning district for Central Avenue, which it did, then the town has sufficient basis today to impose a moratorium on further residential development in that district pending a possible zoning change.

Please schedule the hearing for January 24.

Legal Powerhouse said...

A short term moratorium on residential development on central avenue as a time out to study potential changes to the zoning or master plan is 100% legal.

hal samis said...

Dear Legal Powerhouse,

Please define "short".

Legal Powerhouse said...

Short has two components:

1. 6 months which is
2. renewable if there are active good faith efforts to revise the zoning code or master plan during the moratorium - renewal term could be another 6 months but longer extensions have been employed - again, its a function of the scope of what is trying to be accomplished and the quality of the efforts.

hal samis said...

Dear Legal Powerhouse,

I hope I am not talking to in-house counsel for Indian Point.

So, what you're really saying is it could last longer than the two years+ of the last Town moratorium.

And god forbid, hopefully not as long as new sidewalk construction or tree laws?

Because "quality of effort" is something we can be proud of in Greenburgh. Such quality however falls by the wayside when confronted by "quantity" of effort. The result is that we seldom get to put things to bed bearing the coveted Greenburgh stamp of approval.

That's why our Town Board functions like the "manself" in Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath"; it takes a half step forward and a full step back.

And now if meetings are to end by 11:15, we'll just get nowhere earlier.

Which is why you also come to the blog, having read the Inquirer or Journal. All the news that's fit to print no longer gets printed.

Finally, there are three components to "short". You omitted the most important. There is also short legal mentoring.

Anonymous said...

from mr samis:

"Finally, there are three components to "short". You omitted the most important. There is also short legal mentoring."


Ed Krauss said...

As a first time reader of the Feiner Blog, I find it humorous. Anonymity runs rampant in this Patriot Act society we now live in, or is it old fashioned cowardess?

Point one, an anonymous blogger disparages another anonymous blogger for being anonymous. How about someone who compliments Mr. Feiner for preserving or rather claiming to be in favor of preserving open space in Edgemont, when lip service, at least his, is pledging without performing, for reelection purposes.Is Mr./Mrs./Miss anonymous ashamed of heaping praise on a professional politician whose track record on keeping pledges is below, well below, the Mendoza line. Or,is it tongue in cheek.Naw, it isn't funny.

I also find it interesting that Edgemont is taken to task and no other community is so "rewarded."

If Egdemont is a community of advocates, and it is, praise should be heaped on these advocates for making or trying to make life in all of Greenburgh better than it is. Do advocates in other parts of town try to do the same thing or do they lobby for their section only? Two point three acres shouldn't make one an elitist NIMBY, While 200 acres results in a plaque, and illegal funding of Town money is swept under the rug...for an inordnately long period of time.

It also seems to me that the blog was invented to help captious personalities to vent.

Off the record, Edgemont is a great place to live, with involved people who work their tales off- as unpaid volunteers. Yet, are criticized by, well, critics-without-portfolio.

Finally, to all the anonymous bloggers, get a pseudonym, or better yet use the nmae you were given...if you're not ashamed of it.