Monday, June 11, 2007

GREENBURGH DEMOCRACY-WEEK OF JUNE 11 POST YOUR COMMENTS

Week of June 11...post your comments

Some highlights of the week coming up...
HEARING: CON ED TREE CUTTING LAW = CON ED SHOULD REPLACE TREES THAT ARE CUT
HONORING STUDENT INTERNS WEDNESDAY NIGHT
EAST HARTSDALE AVE--AUTHORIZING MERCHANTS TO HOLD SIDEWALK SALES

165 comments:

Anonymous said...

Greenburgh cannot create an enforceable law or even an enforceable resolution in regards to ConEd's tree-cutting activities. (Understandably, ConEd cannot have one policy for Greenburgh and another policy for Peekskill and another policy for Mamaroneck, etc.)

Here's the current standard:
http://www.coned.com/publicissues/images/TreeTrimming.jpg

Greenburgh can certainly share its suggestions, but realize that this is a regional matter and ultimately a matter of New York State legislation.

Anonymous said...

Is there a law that prohibits people from parking their car on Central Ave. Yesterday Assemblyman Brodsky parked his car on the avenue, across the street from the Richard Presser park? There were a number of available parking spots at presser park.

The Lorax said...

Speaking of trees...
How much was the finder's fee paid to Mr. Gold when the Town acquired Taxter Ridge from the Trust for Public Land? (Remember, the Town did not buy the land directly from the Unification Church - the land passed through the good offices of the Trust for Public Land.) If one adds up the numbers for the purchase of Taxter Ridge one gets significantly different numbers from the Unification Church, the Trust and the Town - the tallies differ by more than half a million dollars between the largest and smallest transactions. The number of acres sold, purchased, retained, transferred, conveyed by deed of trust, conveyed by deed of gift, declared to be surplus and then disposed of as such seems to differ from one party to the next - but the name everyone mentions as the most knowledgeable is that of Danny Gold. None of the parties to the multiple transfers is willing to speak to any member of the great unwashed, each set of lawyers refers questioners to the other participating law firms - or to Mr. Gold for the details.
Perhaps the Office of the State Controller would like to take a look at yet another of Feiner's Follies?

Anonymous said...

9:29am - The Onceler posing as the Lorax!!

Anonymous said...

Truthteller for town council or mayor of Edgemont!

The Lorax said...

I want trees -I love trees!
But I want to be able to visit them without walking all day on highways without sidewalks. How about a bus stop near the start of a passive walking trail?
No thneeds! Grow trees!

hal samis said...

Dear the Lorax,

Right on but...

The Trust for Public Land (TPL)is not an entity that I would describe as having "good offices" other than expensive leased space. The true nature of their business model is a portrait of the opposite.

The reality is that TPL are merely real estate brokers, hiding behind the mask of non-profit and riding the wave shared by do-gooders who want to preserve the environment.

This is not an invitation to discuss the environment.

Non-profits, of which we have all heard the term and thought that their "hearts are in the right place", are nothing more than BUSINESSES which pay high salaries to those on staff because otherwise their Net Operating Income (NOI) would reflect the true nature of these businesses whose operations produce profit. Thus, one way to eliminate the "profit" is to increase the operating expenses including such items as staffing and rent.

The gimmick and niche of the TPL is to preserve green space and they have found an angle to exploit tax loopholes by first conveying title to the TPL.

Similarly, the much bandied about LEEDS certification in construction is thought to be a requisite for producing a green building. LEEDS is nothing more than a trade association of manufacturers who have found their own way to exploit tax loopholes and sell their building products to developers who can then receive tax credits.

Another do gooder is the American Cancer Society which is near the top in overhead of all non-profits.
The Public thinks that they by donating they are funding cancer research but what they are doing, with over 50% of each contributed dollar, is paying for expensive offices, high administrative salaries and COMMISSIONS to its fundraisers who have, in effect, procured a franchise to solicit within a geographic area.

And the same racket exists for those with a concern for historic preservation whereby facades can be deeded for tax benefit and the processor (another non-profit) earns a hefty fee for doing the paperwork.

Or the Greenburgh Health Center provides patient services for reimbursement from Federal programs which enable the GHC to pay substantial salaries to its management, build facilites, hire expensive legal talent and at the end of the day remain non-profit.

The issue is not that the end product is not good or a valuable service is not being produced; the issue is that these entities are not saintly but in business to provide well-paying jobs for their administrators, possible only because the money must be spent.

Not a pretty picture but still tolerable one for those who want to be on the socially acceptable, if not laudable, side of the current flavors of do-goodism.

Thus, the TPL's whole raison d'etre, then and now, is to earn brokerage commissions. As for the Taxter Ridge sale, the entire transaction was over-valued for this purpose, particularly since the Town, for all practical considerations, effectively devalued as much as 45% of the total acreage by making it unusable for development after the passage of its steep slope and wetlands laws.

And who abetted in allowing the purchase to proceed without reflecting on this and ordering a new appraisal which acknowledged the curtailed development rights following the passing of these laws before the purchase?

Not just Feiner (remember it takes three votes) because he was joined by the entire Town Council (Weinberg not Sheehan, Bass, Barnes and Juettner) but also Tom Abinante who ignored my request to obtain an updated appraisal and my request to make the purchase conditioned upon a commitment to create sufficient parking. Mr. Abinante was involved because as a County Legislator, that body approved the County's 1/3 portion of the purchase price. Mr. Abinante was willing to spend County money without any assurance that there would be a means for County residents to enjoy the Parkland.

Of course, since the purchase was really intended as a reward to Mr. Gold and neighbors and in the process enrich them by removing such a large parcel from future development, the lingering question has remained over the years as to whether Mr. Gold received any additional benefit for his lobbying efforts. I would think that the matter could be put to rest were the books of TPL (remember, a non-profit) were examined with emphasis on disbursements.

Since there are few matters of record on which I side with Edgemont leaders, this matter is the exception and I would welcome and support further discovery on their part.

But I urge not settling for a bus stop. I think that East Irvington is at least entitled to share in increased traffic as the Park is open to everyone in New York State, if they can get there. And Greenburgh residents should be screaming at the TOWN BOARD for approving a current capital budget which shows not a nickel going toward opening Taxter Ridge Park, not just today but through 2009.

Ellen said...

Article on Hartsdale stores still hurting in LoHud.com

http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070611/NEWS02/706110338

The Lorax said...

Dear Mr. Samis -
The Trust for Public Land (and every one of the other "charitable" institutions you mentioned are not non-profits - they are properly classified as "not for profits". The difference is not even subtle - a true non-profit corporation must meet far more stringent tests than the run of the mill 501(c)(3). The members of a true non-profit's Board of Directors must disclose their tax returns, all holdings and any and all business relationships - whether or not they are "relevant" to the corporation's charter. Given that a complete loss of privacy follows such disclosures, there are but a tiny handful of real non-profits.
The term "good offices" is a term of art which has meaning only to a lawyer - lay folk might realistically view the phrase as suggesting a den of thieves or the workplace of a Town Building inspector.
I was thinking a bus stop was really appropriate. I had envisioned one with express bus service to the WESTHELP facilities, 125th St and Broadway, and perhaps Gun Hill Road in the Bronx. As NY State residents eligible to use the Taxter Ridge Park and having little parkland of their own, I was sure they'd appreciate and use it - and wouldn't be overly concerned about the lack of a Starbucks (or sanitary facilities) on-site.

hal samis said...

Dear Lorax,

"This could be the start of a beautiful friendship" as "we'll always have Taxter Ridge".

With that in mind, what do you think about the Town's exotic animal laws with regard to barring them from Town owned land? Specifically, if the Town accepts Federal, State or County funds for the purchase or maintenance of say, parkland, can these animals be rightfully excluded?

Borrowing again from the movies, "Are we not human?"

Interested reader said...

The exchanges between the Lorax and Hal Samis are among the most interesting and revealing messages on this otherwise insult-addicted blog. Let's have more.

But to say that Taxter Ridge is open to everyone is a laugh. it is open to nobody because it is unusable and almost impenetrable.

The Danny Gold/commission question is something else. This is something that needs to be tracked down. Taxter Ridge is such a controversial and harmful deal that we need to know whether it was done through chicanery.

Bernstein, go.

taxter's tax scam said...

One of the dirty secrets of Taxter Ridge was the granting by the Town Board (pursuant to secret memos between Feiner and Iagallo the former tax assessor) of $3 million dollars of tax relief to the moonies based upon their supposed agreement to build a church on other lands they owed - this $3 million was the difference between what the town wanted to pay for the land and what the moonies wanted - iagallo came up with the tax scam to bridge the difference. (the moonies never built anything - they just filed plans - a sham)

Anonymous said...

Yes, Bernstein and Samis - go - to the land where "the grickle grass grows" and the wind blows sour. You once-lers are blowing such "smogulous smoke".

Anonymous said...

The Taxter Ridge area would be great for an office park and/or a housing development. The town needs more tax revenue.

hal samis said...

Before I am told to seuss up,
I just want to say:

"twas brillig and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe
all mimsy were the borogoves
and the more raths outgrabe"

Anonymous said...

on another matter-- ask Steve what he says about Francis when people criticize Francis to him. Is the coalition ending?

The Lorax said...

Dear Mr. Samis,
Quoting the Jabberwock, except as noted in the minutes of and for the Town of Greenburgh requires a permit. Permits may be obtained at the Office of the Town Clerk any morning between 9:00AM and 11:00AM except on mornings after Town Board Work Sessions or Town Board Public Meetings, unless the duly-elected Clerk is not physically present to receive your application.
Please note: You may file a Freedom of Information Law request to see the rules for the issuance of this permit, provided you can prove you were unable to present your application personally to the Clerk using a hand signed TOG Form 4Q and attested to by any 3 Town Board members.

Anonymous said...

It always gets back to that three vote thing.

Is that what they mean when they say that things always come in threes?

Anonymous said...

DEAR 6:01 PM,

The suspense is killing us......

What does Steve say about Francis when people criticize Francis to him.

At least Francis supported Steve on that Dakfur resolution. And we all know how much that has helped world affairs.

hal samis said...

Dear All,
Permit me to shift gears and introduce a relatively light weight topic but one which is on the Agenda for tomorrow's meeting.

The Town Board is voting on a one year contract with Leslie Scheiblberg to curate the QUARTERLY, outside sculpture exhibit in DeSantis Plaza (the "parklet" opposite the Hartsdale train station).

For this extraordinary effort in selecting the sculpture the "Curator", Ms Scheiblberg, is to receive $4,560 (possibly including as in the past $200 per artist for transporation and set-up, which in some cases means throwing it in the back seat) so let's even say $4,560 less $800 and talk about $3,760.

Artists love and need exposure, indoor or outdoors. It is really advertising which leads to sales of their work. In traditional galleries, the work of artists is displayed and the gallery receives a percentage of any sales resulting. What we have in this situation is the Town providing the exhibition space for free, the artist receives acknowledgement as the maker and because artists are so hard to find in Greenburgh, we must pay someone almost $4000 to choose. I am not a qualified art critic but let me say that the works exhibited over the years are on display in Hartsdale not because the MET, MOMA or the Guggenheim ran out of room.

Still there are people who claim to appreciate them. However, this quarterly exhibit of one piece has been going on for years and it is not a new contrivance created just to help out the Hartsdale flood victims.

The issue is: can the funds be used for a better purpose, even the relatively small amount? Vaguely I recall that the funding comes from some Hartsdale Center source but since the Town Board has to vote on the contract I assume that this is a discretionery matter. I do have a call in to Ms Gordon to discuss this.

Now, seriously speaking, despite what may be forthcoming in rebuttal, I cannot see myself ever being persuaded that the work to set this up for the entire year as amounting to more than 2 hours or about $2,000 per hour. Ms Scheiblberg has been involved professionally in the gallery world and choosing 4 single works a year cannot be that time consuming, especially as wires to the artist living abroad or outbidding other exhibitors or vying for exclusives are not what this local "exhibit" is about.

Rather to my skeptical mind, it looks like a gift to someone who should be doing it as a volunteer,
much as other citizens commit considerably more of their time and expertise in the service of various town boards, i.e. Zoning, Planning, Ethics, and even the Library Board of Trustees and the Greenburgh Library Foundation.

Let's tell the Town Board that the line is drawn in the sand; we're going to stop wasting this money as of now. This exhibit is not saving Hartsdale from doom and despair and perhaps the Art Gallery in downtown Hartsdale would have some ideas for free.

Because frankly, this amount of money for services rendered looks to me like a very generous gift.

Trivial? Chump change? I would venture to say that a very large number of working residents (be they in labor unions, sales positions or even on town staff as well as most Doctors or Lawyers would like to earn similar rates of compensation for similar service -- and without any liability.

And who judges whether or not she is doing a good job? Town Board is by this amount giving a most generous raise over previous years.

Tell your Town Board to put a stop to this insult right now. And coming from me this is meaningfull:
I would rather see the money go to the Library than see it being thrown down the toilet which is how I view this allocation.

There is some truth to the song lyric, "Every little bit hurts".

Anonymous said...

That money could be better spent to hire a couple of part-time students to do summertime trash pickup and weed-wacking around the town. I have nothing against art, but it does annoy me to see that there's spare cash around for arborists and art exhibits when the most elementary of taxpayer expectations (roadway maintenance) is being actively neglected.

Anonymous said...

Greenawalt bows out for Greenburgh supervisor



(Original publication: June 12, 2007)

GREENBURGH - Bill Greenawalt, the Hartsdale attorney who nearly defeated longtime Town Supervisor Paul Feiner in 2005, will not seek a rematch this fall.

Greenawalt announced today that he will not challenge Feiner in the Sept. 18 Democratic primary, saying he wants to avoid a three-way race among himself, Feiner and Suzanne Berger, the party's designated candidate for supervisor.

"A three-way primary would do irreparable damage," he said in a written statement released this afternoon.

Greenawalt sought the party's endorsement for a rematch against Feiner this year, but party leaders chose Berger, a Dobbs Ferry lawyer who is the chairwoman of the Democratic Town Committee. Greenawalt came within less than 200 votes from beating Feiner in the 2005 primary. Feiner went on to win an eighth term in office unopposed.

Greenawalt also said he would not run on any other party line this year for supervisor.

hal samis said...

Dear anonymous,

Then the song playing in your head is "Every litter bit hurts".
Either way, this is not about art.
I am sure that somehow we can still have 4 installations per year and not have to pay $4,560.

Greenburgh has a lot of resident artists who might be persuaded to volunteer.

But even if we bypass them, then we can always go to page 35 of the Town's 2007 budget and beg for help from the Director of the Council on the Arts, Ms. White and ask if she would make these 4 picks.

The salary of the Director is $50,876 (before benefits) and the Department is in the budget for $62,491.

This Department selects the art exhibits which appear in Town Hall.
I don't think that adding De Santis Plaza would be much of additional burden.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for pointing out this waste Hal.

hal samis said...

Yes but pointing it out and getting the Town Board to vote to stop it are two different matters.

If the Town Board, doesn't understand what is involved, one of its members could ask that it be held over until they arrive at the same conclusion.

One might even conclude that this money is gifting or payback for some favor or even something that won't benefit the entire Town.

Certainly, no one believes that the job takes very much time and that a year's choices (4) can't be made at the same time.

We don't HAVE to maintain the "business as usual" business plan.
We can say "cut it out".

Email your favorite Town Board member today, before the Wednesday night meeting, and say: "just say no". It only take three votes to pass this item or just three votes to defeat it. Who will vote to continue to waste this money? Let's see.

Again, this is not about abandoning the Town's support of the arts. The sculpture "in the park" can continue without this contract.

All Hail Francis said...

Paul is done. With Greenawalt out of the race Berger will waltz in and Sheehan will be the ultimate winner. His power will increase dramatically. All Hail EMPEROR FRANCIS!

Anonymous said...

Amen to Paul is done. Its time.

Anonymous said...

Berger WHO?

You are telling me that with all the foolishness that the majority of Town Board has been involved in this year, ranging from thugishness to apathy to just sleeping at the dais, while topped off by grandstanding and lack of meaningful accomplishment, that the people in this town are going to bring in someone who is going to play patty-cakes with Sir Francis Sheehan?

Maybe I missed something (or maybe it was an amendment to the Dakfur resolution), but has the Greenburg Town Board legalized mild altering hallucinogenics?

Anonymous said...

Paul, whomever is in charge of cable television should be fired.We have not had channel 32 available to us to see town hall meetings. tonight ,13 of june, the town hall meeting was not televised, in its place was Ardsley history and then a repeat of their june 6th meeting. we have not had this service of channel 32 for one month. I think many people have called town hall complaing.I think the contract with Verizon should be done away with,they do not seem to fix the problem regardless of how many calls are made to them. Paul please take this matter serious, we want to see town hall meetings.

Anonymous said...

The town did a fantastic job restoring curbs in our neighborhood. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

You'r luckey....What neighborhood was it.

Jim Lasser said...

To Anonymous at 10:28PM
The name of the person responsible for the Town's cable TV is Alfreda Williams. She is the Town Clerk. She is running for re-election.
You have the power to elect someone else who will do a better job. Use it.

Feiner sounded foolish said...

Regarding the race for town supervisor Feiner has had his chance- 16 years of chances. He was the so called problem solver , now he is the problem (maybe he was the walrus but now he is just john,,err paul). Anyone watching last night's board meeting could plainly see that Feiner has regressed in the job and is clinging to the job out of desperation. If he was a stock, i would have sold him short. Berger may be a new offering but Feiner is like old milk - well past its sell by date. This is not to say the rest of the Board is outstanding, hardly the case. But Feiner's mouthings were just that. Feiner's problem is he believes his press releases. His other problem is no one else does.

hal samis said...

At last night's Town Board meeting, Suzanne Berger was indeed present.

If you didn't see her on camera, perhaps it was because she sat in the front row a few seats over from the reporter from The Scarsdale Inquirer.

Sitting in the front row means also that you can hear better and it is just a few steps to the podium if you are going to speak.

If you couldn't hear or see Suzanne Berger, the fault was not with your cable provider but because Suzanne Berger had nothing to say.

Let's see there were two lengthy Public Hearings last night.
One was allowing limited sidewalk sales for Hartsdale Center merchants who are struggling to recover from the flooding. Whatever your take on allowing this, the hearing was lengthy due to the usual hack job turned in by Steve Bass when he claims ownership of impending legislation.
Since Ms Berger has little awareness of where Hartsdale is located and since her patron, Bob Bernstein, was saving his best material for himself, it is understandable why she had nothing to contribute and thus didn't speak.

The second hearing concerned proposed legislation regarding Con Ed's tree cutting policies in acknowledgement of a recent program to avoid further power outages. (More on this will be written later). And of course on this somewhat "controversial" topic, the public was again not privvy to Ms Berger's thoughts.
Ms Berger, for those of you who have forgotten, is the candidate of choice of the Greenburgh Democratic Party which has selected their "most qualified" candidate to run for the office of Greenburgh Town Supervisor.

Following these hearings came the Public Comment period, 5 minutes to discuss anything on the Agenda or anything -- no personal attacks permitted! Did Ms Berger have anything to say about anything? We didn't hear because by then she had left.

This sampling of a would-be Supervisor with nothing to say certainly suggests that meetings will not run as late were she to attain office. On the other hand, the full meaning of the phrase
"Pretender to the Throne" becomes clearer and clearer. If the strategy of the campaign is to be "I'm not Feiner", then having a door knob on the ballot would be the idealized stand-in. However, speaking without license for the public, I suggest that we would like to have some idea of how she would deal with actual issues, not slogans or philosophy. Public Hearings are such an opportunity for her to participate in legislative "brain storming" and would allow her to speak with an unofficial presence as though she were the "6th" Town Board member.
Thus she would have a public platform to illustrate those "as advertised" lawyerly skills she possesses to negotiate settlements.

Or perhaps Mr. Bernstein will decide to share some of his better material with her.

Last night he was in fine form until... Some of us remember when Mr. Bernstein used to say at Public Meetings that the Town should do this or shouldn't be doing that. And he would then offer that he could have solved the problem had he only been asked to the meetings. "I wasn't asked" is what he would tell us.

So last night he tells us that with regard to a fault finding/problem solving meeting re Hartsdale flooding origins and cures, that Feiner asked him to this meeting and for his coveted advice. "Don't ask me" said Bernstein and launched into a recitation of a laundry list of experts that should be involved. But then, in what completely lost me, came a fusillade of comments which seemed to say that Feiner, the Supervisor, should be in charge of the project, not DPW, not these experts. As poorly as I may be relating this portion is due not to my bias but to my confusion. Was Feiner expected to climb down into the drains? Was he to make independent determinations? Was Feiner to take decisive action without the Town Council? I honestly don't know because the three sections of Mr. Bernstein's comments seemed, to this humble observor, to be at odds with each other. Perhaps the king of anonymous will clarify. It may simply be because of the limited time constraints of Public Comment curtailing exposition or otherwise, but that portion of Bernstein's dance card read: Attack Feiner 10,
Be Logical 3.

Berger and Feiner said...

Hal, maybe you were at a different meeting. Bernstein convincingly showed that Feiner and Co. do not know how to do things the right way even after 16 years in office.

Feiner has a terrible tendency to speak about every matter which only proves both how inarticulate he is and how foolish he is. Suzanne Berger seemingly knows that silence is golden.

hal samis said...

While I appreciate the "& Co." were you at the meeting or were at the meeting from home?

My Bernstein reference was to the Public Comment section, not the Public Hearing.

If silence is the criterion for a Town Supervisor, or any elected official, then, indeed, we should go with the low maintenance door knob.

Paul Feiner said...

I have asked the town engineer to provide me and the town bd with a report as to the feasibility of placing pumps on E Hartsdale Ave or sandbags (Mr. Bernstein's suggestion). I spoke to Mike Lepre today. I will post his response when I receive it.

question for supervisor said...

why wasnt this done in 2005 when you knew about the potential for a disaster? when will you take responsbility for this major screw up?

Mickey (not Anony) Mouse said...

Placing pumps is a nice idea! But where will the water be pumped to? The mighty Bronx River? And how shall it get there? Across East Hartsdale Avenue then DeSantis Plaza and finally across the ELECTRIFIED Metro North Railroad tracks?
Please come to a complete stop.
Then put brain in gear before placing foot in mouth.

Anonymous said...

and thats after 16 years on the job! Berger is right - we cannot afford Feiner anymore!!

hal samis said...

And Berger's solution is.........?

samis and berger agree? said...

one would hope something you have called for and should have been done along time ago - fire the head of dpw!!

hal samis said...

Sorry but,
"one would hope" is not the substitute for a statement by Berger of a solution.

Anonymous said...

Berger supports Sheehan. Sheehan had the women Superintendent from Valhalla threatened by Gil Kaminer. Feiner wanted an investigation of this deplorable incident. Sheehan did not. Is this the same type of government we can expect from Berger? Berger is too aligned with Sheehan. For all the Feiner haters out there, don't be so blinded by your hate that you will do anything to rid the Town of Feiner. You can make a good argument that we are in the first 18 months of the Sheehan Dictatorship. Don't throw Democracy out the window along with Feiner. Sheehan/Berger is a far worse alternative. Our democratic freedoms have already been eroded by Sheehan and with the support of Berger, our form of Government will mimic that of ancient Rome.

feiner's record of shame said...

dear anon - please concern yourself with valhalla politics. if there is anyone who has burned more women it is feiner - scores of top level female professionals have left greenburgh government because they could not abide feiner and his games. the town paid dearly for this. again, please stay out of our town and on the way out, please repay the millions you stole.

Anonymous said...

Berger///Sheehan wants to be supervisor one day. By him endorsing you he has set the machine in motion for his running after he has put all his energy into making you look bad .This is the way he works, You will be paving the way for him . DON'T RUN BERGER. DO YOURSELF A FAVOR.

Anonymous said...

You are all missing the point. Berger isn't planning to stay around as Supervisor. She has much bigger plans, and Brodsky has worked it out for her. She is only running because the big guys (Bernstein, McNally, the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations,and the rest of the Edgemont mafia)think that as a village resident she can get the village vote to help beat Feiner. Then after she wins, they hope, she will stick around for two years and go on to greener pastures while Sheehan and Bass fight it out over who runs for Supervisor next time.

It is politics at its worst. Feiner isn't very good, but he doesn't lie and calculate like the Bernstein/Sheehan/Berger/Bass group. It will be a sad day for Greenburgh if they get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Boy you have got to be crazy...What makes you think that the Edgemont mafia will sway the village vote to swing for Berger.The civic association of Edgemont has fought so much for ,different matters, that have cost villagers more taxes and the beat goes on.One cannot win an election because a civic association says so. This is one thing that Edgemont will not get in their favor.You see they are looking to put their best friend in that seat the next time arround. Sheehan is tasting victory, not Berger, she's his stepping stone to we all hope his downfall.

Anonymous said...

To 8:52. You are right. I wrote at 6:48. I also think that Berger is a stepping stone for Sheehan, or maybe Bass. The Edgemont mafia knows that if they run someone like Greenawalt, who lives in Hartsdale, the villages won't vote for him. So they hope that Berger will fool them. She won't.

Anonymous said...

If this election is for Berger to get her feet wet in town politics ,she's making a big mistake.The Democratic party is also using her as Sheehan is. If she had better and bigger plans as one said that Brodsky is grooming her, she would have not taken the endorcement for town supervisor..What makes Berger think that she will succeed as town supervisor. If she fails will Brodsky run to her aid.or will he forget his plans for a bigger and better position,for her.Maybe Brodsky is looking out for Sheehan and not Berger.

Anonymous said...

If this election is for Berger to get her feet wet in town politics ,she's making a big mistake.The Democratic party is also using her as Sheehan is. If she had better and bigger plans as one said that Brodsky is grooming her, she would have not taken the endorcement for town supervisor..What makes Berger think that she will succeed as town supervisor. If she fails will Brodsky run to her aid.or will he forget his plans for a bigger and better position,for her.Maybe Brodsky is looking out for Sheehan and not Berger.

Anonymous said...

This only goes to show you who runs Greenburgh...Sheehan and his loving friends in Edgemont. Bass seems to be falling out of their graces,for now. I would love to see the outcome of the love affair of Bass ,Sheehan and Edgemont....after the election, since they think that the village people will follow their lead, The people in the villages are to smart to fall into the web that Edgemont as woven with the chosen few on the board.

Anonymous said...

Let's see... we've got Sir Francis, Brodsky, the newly found Berger, and Young Kaminer with a dash of Bernstein thrown into the Greenburgh pot.

Mix all that together and boy oh boy ...can you think of a larger man made disaster?

Oh great powers, have mercy on the poor souls of Greenburgh, so they do not get hit with what one day may be considered the eighth plague!

Anonymous said...

Dear Blogers,

Please be prepared for the death of this blog should Supervisor Paul not be re-elected.

Do you think Sir Francis or any other members of the silent majority want this to continue? Let the taxpayers be silent again.

That’s our Democratic team for you.

Anonymous said...

Dear 5:12 pm:

Fact: Threat by town employee
Fact: Fulfillment of threat by town board

I rest my case, your honor.

Anonymous said...

We cannot express our thoughts and feelings about the four board members other than in this blog. THis is the only way that they know how disgusted the residents are . Yes I do think that Sheehan will be the first to remove this blog.The way he owns the newspaper thru his puppet Kaminer,he will remove the democratic way of life. I hope that the residents of Greenburgh will not elect Berger because that will be the first step for Sheehan to change our way of life. Just remember the other areas in Greenburgh will be on the short end of the stick,since Edgemont and Sheehan rule.

Anonymous said...

Paul, Verizon cable has not repaired the problem that has existed for one month. We have not had the regular programs that were being televised including town hall meetings.Something has to be done immediately. Ardlsey, Eastchester,Irvington,are comin g in loud and clear. We got lost in this shuffle. HELP.

Anonymous said...

Cable is the responsibility of the Town Clerk.

There is a new candidate running for that position, Judith Beville. Just like Bass & Barnes have overstayed their welcome, we might as well get a new clerk too, who will focus on taxpayer services and responsiveness to the comunity. And by the community, I mean more than just Sheenhan & Burnstein.

I would expect that Judith Beville will get things fixed if she gets elected.

Anonymous said...

bob bernstein's suggestion to address the flooding on e hartsdale ave--pumps doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous said...

"Please come to a complete stop. Then put brain in gear before placing foot in mouth."

This statement represents exactly why I will vote for anyone other than Mr. Feiner. Time and time again, I am truly embarrassed by the seat-of-the-pants communications of our town's CEO.

I know nothing yet about Berger, but I would have to vote for her. Is there a Republican or other party candidate running?

Anonymous said...

Dear 4:54 am:

"I know nothing yet about Berger, but I would have to vote for her."

I think that type of thinking says it all.

That is some scary way of choosing people who are going to impact your family's life.

Do you feel the same way about picking doctors, tax preparers and baby sitters for your children?

You scare me.

berger vs. feiner said...

we know enough about feiner that he has overstayed his welcome. berger is ramping up - be a little patient - she was not selected as the candidate of the greenburgh democrats to lose - she is there to win and end the feiner era of incompetence, corruption, pandering , divisiveness and isolation of the town because feiner has few allies in county or state government. berger has the necessary local, county and statewide relationships to get things done for the town.

Anonymous said...

Dear Berger vs. Feiner:

Sir Francis of Sheehan already has every vote of the Town Board in his (and Bob's) pocket other than one.

Supervisor Paul has one vote.

Will Ms Berger's vote make every resolution pass unanimously? What exactly will that do for the Town of Greenburgh? What will that do for Dakfur?

The "three votes" plus already exists and they have created a quagmire for all to see.

Voting for someone who is very likely to melt into the majority will accomplish exactly what?

Go ahead and vote for the Mary comes lately. Just what we need, another Democratic party machine hack.

Government at its best, wouldn't you say!

feiner vs berger said...

To expect that Greenburgh will get anything out of state and national relationships is the ultimate of illusion, or delusion. Greenburgh is quite OK now, notwithstanding the constant gripes of those who want everything for themselves.

I don't know whether Berger can be a good Supervisor. She is a litigator and she has no financial or administrative experience to speak of. That is typical of litigators. And she is tied hand and foot to Bernstein, who has taught us how much harm litigators can do to Greenburgh. Make no mistake about it. Her candidacy is all about giving power to the Edgemont people, who are responsible for her candidacy. It isn't only the villages which will be hurt, it is the other parts of Greenburgh who don't come to meetings and make demands. And when Berger leaves in two years and Sheehan is scheduled to take over it will be even worse. If you think pandering is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until Edgemont takes over.

Feiner is clumsy and talks too much, but at least he cares about human issues. Bass and Barnes don't care, and it will be a nice change of Brown and Morgan win.

Anonymous said...

The town has received substantial funds from the federal, state and county governments. Look at the parks acquisitions. Look at the CDBG grants. The town has outstanding relationships with other levels of government

Anonymous said...

Edgemont civic associations should not try to dictate as to whom they want to win the election. Berger will fall into a trap for her full term if she wins. This will happen as soon as she is elected.Sheehan is running this election. He was a republican all his life but seeing that there was no place for him to go he changed parties mid stream,to suit his political grandeur.Edgemont gets everything that they demand. You could rest assured that the villages will not sit back and let this Berger dame win. The villages have too much to loose. Yes Berger is part of the Edgemont crew if she teams up with them which from the comments she already has,we will be another disaster waiting to happen since Sheeehan won the election with all the lies he told about his apponent K Morgan.If the people fall into the trap to vote for Berger because of promises she will make,it's not for Greenburgh as a whole, it will be just for Edgemont .The Democrates chose her because they had no one to fit the bill they are in the same sinking boat as the republican party,

Anonymous said...

What do lawyers know about construction.The job to prevent the same flooding problem in Hartsdale should be for the commissioner of DPW.If he does his job correctly the problem will be solved. Our supervisor is looking into how he could solve the problem,so the merchants could go on with their lives. Has the commissioner come up with any ideas yet. If not he should ask his boss Sheehan as to what has to be done.Putting their two heads together,you could rest assured the Hartsdalians will need to have Noahs ark. The two should resign from their present positions, to give us all a better quality of life.

Anonymous said...

To 11:08. Greenburgh has gotten tons of grants over the past 15 years, federal, state and county. If getting federal, state and local grants is all tnat Berger can deliver, we don't need her. We have done quite well, thank you.

All she really has to offer is "I'm not Feiner" and that just won't cut it. I am sure that Feiner has made many mistakes (who doesn't?) but turning the town over to the group of power hungry bunch from Edgemont would be our mistake.

Anonymous said...

I think that Berger and her friends want to win so that they can help Edgemont become a village. That would devastate the town, and it can't be cured.

feiner is all about feiner said...

the only thing feiner cares about is clinging to his job. that is why he will say or do anything to keep it. he has had the job for 16 years. its enough. if he is so talented he can find a job in the private sector. if not, maybe his developer friends or someone at pr from indian point can give him one.

hal samis said...

In brief (for a change),

Feiner is not pro-Indian Point.

Berger is running for Town Supervisor people with money are willing to back someone they can control to run against Feiner. Ms. Berger was chosen because maybe she can take Village votes away from Feiner.

Ms Berger really wants to be a judge.
Ms Berger is not worried about Mr Sheehan, much less Mr. Bass. She does not even want to be Town Supervisor. What she is doing she is to build up Democratic "iou's" which she can cash in when a desired judgeship opens up.

And to introduce a new possibility, what if the game plan were to have Berger win, resign during the right calendar quarter when "someone" on the Town Council serves as Deputy Supervisor and that person then becomes the Supervisor. Truly a no-risk arrangement for anyone not wanting to give up their seat on the Council.

Gee, whom could that be?

Questions re G7 Budget said...

From a letter in todays Journal News

Regarding the Greenburgh budget

None of this chicanery and fear-mongering is necessary. What Central 7 bureaucrats desperately try to conceal is the fact that if voters reject the revised budget (and the proposition), spending in a "contingency" budget will still rise 3.92 percent, or nearly $2 million. That is sufficient to fund new positions, keep the summer school open and the fitness center operating normally. It may, however, require addressing curious spending items, such as the additional $97,000 for the Board of Education and a $30,000 increase to run the superintendent's office.

Why does the Board of Ed need 97,000?

Why the increase to the superintendents office?

Why did the district approve a new teachers contract the day before the budget was voted down?

Anonymous said...

Another question, why is the BOE, in particular Mr Williams, more interested in grand-standing and attacking the Superintendent than focusing on student success?

Anonymous said...

Bob Bernstein was seen walking the streets of Edgemont with Steve Bass on Friday. Was this inappropriate? Bernstein has filed a lawsuit against the town. Bass is on the other side. Bernstein doesn't want the town to fight hard regarding the appeal of the lawsuit. Bass has a vote.
Months ago Bass returned a campaign contribution from Bernstein. What's the ethical difference of returning money or from accepting campaign help from the same person?

Jim Lasser said...

Why is Steve Bass walking an election district with Bob Bernstein (the local Democratic party official)to collect petition signatures any more inappropriate than Paul Feiner standing outside the A&P in Edgemont (ALONE) doing the same thing?
Don't confuse politics with governance. Getting out and collecting signatures is part of the process - Mr. Feiner and Mr. Bass both need to do it to qualify for their respective places on the ballot. Mr. Bass probably had Mr. Bernstein with him because Mr. Bass is the party's endorsed candidate and Mr. Bernstein is the district leader of the neighborhood they were walking. Mr. Feiner is entitled to walk with anyone he chooses - though because the party didn't endorse him he probably won't have a district leader walking with him.

Mickey (not anony) Mouse said...

I don't give a relative's behind about political shenanigans. All I want to know is who will attest the signatures on Mr. Feiner's petitions? And who can we hold responsible when, as in each of the last several petition drives, Mr. Feiner's petition contains curiously similar signatures - some of them from people who signed (in a different hand!) a competing petition? Worse yet - what about the dead people who signed Feiner's petition? The judge who refused to invalidate Feiner's theft of the Democratic line in 2001 should be ashamed of himself - but that's another matter.

Anonymous said...

Mickey, did you loose the election running against Feiner. Too bad. If Feiner is going arround for petitions you can rest assured that the signatures are legal. Try another way to throw a monkey wrench into this election.

Mickey (not anony) Mouse said...

I've never run against Feiner, so that leaves the losers as the voters and residents of Greenburgh. I note you did not dispute the accuracy of my words - you just don't like the truth very much.

Anonymous said...

Mickey, if there was anything wrong with the petitions they would have been thrown out asap. Get you facts straight. You know nothing about petitions. If the judge said that nothing was wrong he rules.Were any of them thrown out. Feiner's name was on the ballot and he won. You're bringing up an election that took place six years ago.What's wrong with you. I'm not going along with your comments at all. . Help Feiner get the amount of petitions that he needs to run on what ever line he chooses so you could check if one has to challenge the person or not.

Mickey (not anony) Mouse said...

Hey, check the judge's ruling. It said there WERE irregularities but he was unwilling to invalidate the election because of the lopsided results. No question Feiner won - just whether he was so insecure he cheated a bit.
All I'm asking is that ALL the candidates play by the same rules -but what do I know, I'm only a mouse...

Anonymous said...

In bringing up something from 2001 does not make you a mouse it makes you a rat.

greenburgh beware said...

Put your excuses aside. Bass and Bernstein have worked in unison for years, and it is no surprise that they are campaigning together.

But there is something people outside of Edgemont should know. Bernstein and his group are still pushing for Edgemont to becpme a separate village. That is the end result of all their activities and complaints. And you can bet that the price for Bernstein's support for Bass is to help him get an Edgemont village.

What a separate Edgemont village means is a disaster for the rest of the unincorporated area. With the Edgemont tax base largely removed from town taxes it will devasate the other areas. Fairview will be hurt the most, because the funding for the Community Center will shrink, or else there will be a huge tax increase for the unincorporated area. All the costs of the town government and administration that are now paid for by the entire unincorporated area will have to be paid for by the unincorporated area minus Edgemont.

Edgemont is the wealthiest part oif Greenburgh, so maybe they won't mind the large increase in their taxes as they switch from town taxes to village taxes. But every other unincorporated area resident will suffer.

So be warned. Bernstein and Bass campaigning together are a red flag showing that Bernstin will get his way with Edgemont. For those who don't want Edgemont to be off the town tax rolls, voting for Bass and the other organization candidates would be economic suicide.

O yes, they will tell you that Edgemont will still pay town taxes. Yes they will. They will pay the small 5% that the other villages pay, which Bernstein always complains about.

Anonymous said...

Feiner was seen walking the streets of Edgemont last night with none other than Don Siegel.

Two years ago, Siegel worked with Feiner to try to defeat Edgemont's school budget.

Having Siegel walk with Feiner is an excellent way to remind voters in Edgemont of Feiner's involvement in that cynical and hugely unsuccessful effort of theirs to trash Edgemont's schools.

Siegel was responsible for sending out false and misleading literature attacking Edgemont's teachers, and then refusing to correct his misstatements.

One of Feiner's paid campaign aides that year used a website linked to the town's website to mock prominent Edgemont residents who wrote letters to the editor in support of the budget.

Feiner helped Siegel to arrange robo-calls urging Edgemont residents to vote no on the budget.

And when disappointed Feiner supporters in Edgemont asked Feiner to help counter the effort with robo calls supporting the budget, Feiner said yes -- and then at the last minute, when it was too late to get someone else to help -- he said no.

Edgemont voters that year soundly rejected the efforts of Feiner and Siegel. They approved the budget by more than a thousand votes. And this year, the budget won overwhelming approval by a 9-1 margin.

Yep, having Siegel walk with Feiner is an excellent way to remind Edgemont residents just how out of the Edgemont mainstream Feiner really is.

hal samis said...

I guess that Bernstein and Bass are now taking their exercise in the form of walks. Good for them. And Eddie Mae Barnes, because she is already a well-known Edgemont resident, doesn't need the tour.

Apparently it isn't that unsafe to walk in Edgemont without sidewalks.

What do you suppose they talk about between stops?

feiner scare tactics won't work said...

Feiner is obviously trying to scare people in the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh with all his talk about what might happen if Edgemont became a village.

But Greenburgh residents are smart.

Bernstein may want Edgemont to become a village, but Greenburgh residents know that if the courts rule in Bernstein's favor that parks and recreational facilities that are open town-wide must be paid for town-wide, that Edgemont will have to pay its fair share for the Community Center, just like village taxpayers should.

And that's as it should be. The Community Center serves lower income and minority families from throughout the town, including from the villages.

What base instinct is Feiner appealing to when he tells village residents they shouldn't have to pay their fair share for the excellent programs and facilities that Greenburgh offers to low income and minority families town-wide?

Anonymous said...

A question,WIll Edgemont be the only area voting this year. From the comments it seems that the other areas are rulled out.

Anonymous said...

No, Edgemont will not be the only community voting this year, though Berger and Bass and Barnes treat it as if it the only community worth considering.

The other communities should take notice and not go along with Edgemont. Bernstein and the other Edgemont activists will turn the town government into a vehicle for Edgemont interests.

That's why it is different if Bernstein walks with Bass than Siegel walking with Feiner. Siegel is a resident who supports a candidate. Bernstein is a resident who has sued the town and always threatens to sue more and more. For Bass, who is supposed to consider the whole town, to accept Bernstein's help means that Bass is choosing sides and strengthening Bernstein. That's not good for anybody.

Anonymous said...

The three B's think that Edgemont will become a village. No way. We cant afford it. Bass, Bernstein and Berger you will be wearing off plenty of shoe leather walking arround your area. The whole of Greenburgh has to vote in this election.How much time do you have to greet the voters.

Anonymous said...

EXTRA/////EXTRA Pick up todays June 16th Journal news ,it contains an article on the sewer audit conducted by the Comptroller OF New York.

Anonymous said...

Bass and Bernstein have been buddies for many years. who feeds bernstein all the info about town matters,and do not exclude Michele McNally.Bass your time as a council member is running out,no matter who's coattail you hang on to. The company you keep will has been your downfall..

Round Hill Road remembers said...

Siegel thinks he can win votes for Feiner in Edgemont?

Think again. Siegel was present for that Feiner fundraiser in March 2004 when Feiner took $1,000 from D'Allesio, the developer who had an application pending before the town board to cut down trees on Round Hill road.

Once Feiner got the money, he and Siegel tried to "mediate" the tree dispute -- never once telling any of us on Round Hill Road that Feiner had taken the developer's money and was not an "honest" broker.

Bottom line, of course, was that the developer cut down the trees without waiting for the town board to decide the appeal -- and Feiner did nothing to stop him.

And to add insult to injury, Feiner then allowed the developer to put up a hideous illegal fence and the town issued a summons against one of our neighbors whose kids' swingset was too close to it.

Oh, and when we asked Feiner to give back the money, he said no.

So thanks Siegel -- thanks for walking with Feiner and reminding us once again how corrupt Feiner is.

hal samis said...

If I understand this correctly, Bob Bernstein is a good Democratic Party delegate and he is merely introducing his Party's candidate.

It doesn't matter that he contributed to this candidate's campaign fund while he, Bernstein, is in litigation with the Town of which his walk-mate is a paid, elected official. What does matter is that his walk-mate accepted the contribution and only returned it under pressure.

But Bob is merely doing his Party job.

Because it is necessary to collect signatures for the primary. What a waste of time when everyone in Edgemont already shows up at ECC meetings and could sign up in one fell swoop.

And if Feiner should win the Democrat Party Primary, can we look forward to Bob walking Feiner around the nabe?

But where are Berger and Sheehan walking? Let's not loose sight of the doughnut by being deflected to the hole. It is their thirsty boots which should be watched because one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

Remember if Berger gets elected and she "resigns", she just might appoint Sheehan as Supervisor on the way out.

And then we'll be walking in the reign.

Anonymous said...

Hal,

There are no ECC meetings scheduled while during the petition period. The petition period is about a month, from a date in mid June to mid July. ECC meetings are the first of every month, with no scheduled meetings in July or August. That is the case with many civic etc., boards, to not have July or August meetings. I don't know what various Hartsdale groups do.

Anonymous said...

Mr. 2:56. Are you really so literal that you thought that Samis really meant that Bernstein should get his signatiures in an ECC meeting? Of course Samis was mocking Bernstein, and exposing Bernstein's dishonesty and the dishonesty of the person (who may be Bernstein) who tried to treat the Bernstein-Bass connection as just routine party activity.

The Town Council has let Bernstein assume control over its activities, and Bernstin is trying to take over even more by having his toadies get elected. If that is what you like, vote Berger/Bass/Barnes/Williams. If you want a government that is responsible to the wider unincorporated Greenburgh, and doesn't pick unnecessary fights with the villages, vote Feiner/Brown/Morgan/Beville.

we can't afford feiner or his "team" said...

Let's face it:

A vote for Feiner, Morgan, Brown and Beville is a vote to give away to the Mayfair Knollwood gang running the Valhalla School District the rest of the $6.5 million that Feiner was giving away until the State Comptroller said the deal was illegal and the Town Council stepped in and stopped Feiner.

That's right folks. You want Feiner giving away -- illegally -millions of town taxpayer dollars?

Just give him three votes and he'll do as he pleases - the law and Greenburgh taxpayers be damned.

And why stop there? Morgan, Brown and Beville are all running on the $140,000 that Feiner raised from developers with applications pending before the town.

Who wins if Feiner's team wins? The developers win. Corruption wins. Good government loses. Open government loses.

more from the feiner smear campaign said...

Bernstein dishonest?

Bernstein filed a lawsuit to get Feiner and the town to comply with state law requiring parks open townwide to be paid for townwide.

The lower court ruled in Bernstein's favor and the appellate court is deciding not only whether Feiner and the town acted illegally, but now wants argument on whether Feiner and the town acted unconstitutionally as well.

Doesn't sound like the courts think he's dishonest.

Bernstein gave political contributions a few years ago, as is his First Amendment right. He's not a developer and he's never had any applications before the town where he stood to profit personally from any town board decision one way or the other.

He got nothing in return from anyone except a lot of angry words from Feiner and his perennial reelection campaign.

Anonymous said...

Where did Bass ,Barnes ,and Berger get their campaign money, You said that Feiner was fitting the bill for Brown, morgan,and Beville,including himself through illegal means. Boy, that money lasted through 2 elections. Tell me how this was done. I think he also paid for Sheehan and Juettner race. I don't see you mentioning their names,Why.

Mickey (not anony) Mouse said...

To Anonymous at 10:02AM -
If telling the verifiable truth about a past incident makes me a rat, I gracefully accept the title. In return, for not wanting to deal with what happened, I offer you the title of ostrich. Breaking the law is simply not acceptable behavior for a public official. EVER. Get it?

Anonymous said...

How do you know that Feiner raised all this money from developers. I contributed to his campaign ,and will do so again. I'm not a developer nor do I have any plans before any board. I like the way I'm living ,happy and free.

Anonymous said...

Mickey,leave it alone the past is gone, we have to think about tomorrow,FEINER,BROWN,MORGAN AND BEVILLE

Anonymous said...

Split all of unincorporated Greenburgh into three villages - Edgemont, Hartsdale, North Greenburgh. Nine villages + no unincorporated area = much more efficiency and fairness, and a whole lot less drama.

(The South Ardsley/Mount Hope area and the neighborhood next to Ardsley high school could go to Ardsley. Glenville to Tarrytown, East Irvington to Irvington ... probably some other little tweaking that would need to be done, but it wouldn't matter to Greenburgh since there would be no unincorporated area anymore, which would be everyone's ideal situation.)

Anonymous said...

See, I told you so. Create villages, raise taxes, and take away the great recreation programs that benefit the whole town. Especially destroy Fairview because the rich edgemont reidents don't want to help Fairview - after all, the edgemont people can afford to do for themselves so to hell with Fairview and the rest of the town.

Non-Edgemont residents, when are you going to wake up and see what is planned to be done to you.

Anonymous said...

No one I know in Edgemont minds helping pay for these programs -- we just want the rest of Greenburgh to pay also. So far, the courts have agreed with that. If the Villages were charged, as they should, there would be more money, not less for these programs.

Anonymous said...

Sure, and Edgemont should pay for village parks also. You use them about as much as village residents use unincorporated area parks.

But we know what you want. You want to be away from Greenburgh. The rest is just an excuse.

Anonymous said...

The difference is the Villages vote for officials who limit the use of their parks and also have the majority of votes for Town officials who buy parks and initiate programs. The Villages have never said stop: Not to Taxter Ridge, not to other plans.

Ugly history repeating itself said...

It's not Edgemont that doesn't want to help Fairview -- it's the villages.

For many years, restrictive zoning didn't allow African Americans to live in the Rivertowns. And in some of the villages, like Dobbs Ferry, non-residents weren't even allowed use the parks -- which is still true today.

In 1960, African American residents of Fairview weren't allowed to use the libraries in the four Greenburgh villages that had them -- Tarrytown, Hastings, Dobbs Ferry and Irvington.

And if that were not enough, Greenburgh's village-dominated government wouldn't build a town library for African American residents of Fairview to use unless only unincorporated Greenburgh would pay for it.

And why was that? Acording to then State Comptroller Arthur Levitt, the "richer areas" in the town's villages were accepting "no responsiblity to aid less fortunate areas in the provision of essential services."

Levitt called the state's decision to require only unincorporated Greenburgh to pay for the library "a backward step."

It's now 2007 and where are we today?

We have Feiner trying to keep his job as town supervisor by leading the effort to keep village residents from having to pay for parks open townwide -- even if it means shutting down town-wide services to the poor and minority families that need them.

That's not a record to be proud of.

Anonymous said...

Berntein is at it again. Now he is trying to paint village residents as bigots. What's next? Has the man no decency?

Anonymous said...

8:39---you cannot say that Feiner is a bigot.He has helped all the people of Greenburgh regardless of their color or religious affiliations.He does not know who is at the other end of the telephone,but he's there to help each one of us.Rich or poor doesn't matter to him. He happens to be a great humanitarian.Where has he cut services for the miniority ?I think you are living in a different planet

Anonymous said...

Anon at 6:26 said "rich Edgemont" residents didn't want to help Fairview.

Anon at 8:39 pointed out in response, with authority from the state comptroller no less, that historically it's been the "rich villages" that didn't want to help Fairview, and that Edgemont, as part of unincorporated Greenburgh, has always helped.

Most village residents today would gladly pay their fair share of the town's costs for helping poor and minority families town-wide, and can't believe Feiner is against this.

No one called anyone a "bigot." Didn't have to.

Anonymous said...

Do you people even know what the boundries of Fairview are? I bet you don't.
Old Fairgrounds,Parkway Gardens,
Manhattan Park,Hillside Wyndover, Parkway Homes, Valimar, Mayfair Acres, Knollwood Manor,Woodlands section(off Dobbs Ferry Rd) Worthington Estates, Subburban Manor, Orchard Hill, Lower Orchard Hill.Sky Meadow, Juniper Hill and ther are more I can't come up with

Anonymous said...

"But we know what you want. You want to be away from Greenburgh. The rest is just an excuse."

I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want to be away from Greenburgh, even if purely for that matter of getting rid of this antiquated governance system. So inefficient and unfair to all residents - villages and unincorporated area.

Anonymous said...

The history of Greenburgh and how it's divided - particularly ZIP codes and school district boundaries - was, in fact, driven by race and socioeconomics. This is the reality, and it's unfortunate that such systems and structures are still allowed today.

Think, for example, of the boundaries for Unincorporated Greenburgh's three main ZIP codes, and how most village-bordering white areas are designated with village ZIP codes. That's just the way things were done back in the day. Too bad no one has repaired this decades-old situation. Though imagine the uproar if Edgemont wasn't allowed to pretend that it's Scarsdale anymore?! Really, though, I feel bad that northern Greenburgh's black people were required to use White Plains at their address. (10607 is now addressed as Greenburgh, right?)

Bottom line: Greenburgh's racial and socioeconomic segregation history is true.

Anonymous said...

I dont think most people care about zip codes, other than when they're addressing mail.

Part of Edgemont has a Hartsdale address. And parts of Harrison have a White Plains address.

Anonymous said...

So Scarsdale has passed a moratorium on subdivisions, Courtand has legislated agaisnt McMansions and what has Paul "the Friend of any developer with a checkbook" Feiner done to protect our quality of life, our tax base?

hal samis said...

Dear McIdiot,
So ask for a moratorium on subdivisions TOWNWIDE, like Scarsdale.
And we already have regulations against McMansions.
Just three votes.

Jim Lasser said...

Dear Anonymous at 1:27AM
Zip codes are assigned solely by the United States Postal Service - they have absolutely nothing to do with political boundaries. If you FOIL the minutes of the Greenburgh Town Meeting (because in Greenburgh that's how you must request public documents) when the Supervisor was concerned with creating a "Greenburgh" address for Town Hall, you will find a complete explanation from the USPS.
School district boundaries are the sole province of the NY State Department of Education. Many school districts in the metropolitan area pre-date the local civic government. They were established to provide schools which were large enough to warrant hiring a teacher, but small enough geographically to allow children to attend without needing to board away from their parents.
As for the history of racism in Greenburgh - you are historically accurate. The restrictive convenants barred Afro-Americans, Jews, and those of certain other backgrounds from buying property in the villages. The Supreme Court of the United States overturned restrictive convenants less than 40 years ago. "Greenburgh Beware" does everyone a disservice - if each of the villages paid it's "fair" share, there would be more money for parks and recreation because the tax base from which the money is raised would be almost twice as large. Another commentator suggested making the parks all Town parks - which would allow the villages to discontinue funding their parks and place the financial burden on the Townwide budget. When I suggested doing exactly that (during my campaign for Supervisor in 2003) I was blasted by some village residents who complained that it would open their parks to everyone. For them the issue was their continued ability to control access to their parks. So, while for most village residents the issue of racism is long past, for some it remains an issue of some importance.
I suppose one could put a more benign interpretation on village residents needing to keep complete control of their own parks. Perhaps it is because they look at the lack of maintenance at Town parks and are concerned that if their parks became Town parks, they too would be under-maintained. Fair enough. But does that mean the village residents don't really care about the services the Town delivers to those not fortunate enough to live within village boundaries? I wonder where I've heard that before...

Anonymous said...

Thank you Jim for that background.

I live in unincorporated Greenburgh and I do not beleive that the Village residents want to limit their parks for racist reasons. As you said, they want more control over their parks. I also think the recent violent issues a the Greeenburgh 7 middle schools concerns people.

Can you also share some light on the issue discussed that at one time Edgmont and Hartsdale shared a district and Hartsdale decided to leave the joint district?

Anonymous said...

"Zp codes are assigned solely by the United States Postal Service - they have absolutely nothing to do with political boundaries."

That's right in regards to nowadays, but you may not be old enough to remember, but the initial assignment of ZIP codes was VERY political, based in much part by race and socioconomics. I remember precisely the shady ways that some streets outside of Scarsdale got 10583 and others did not. Long story, not worth going into; it was a very different time, but those are the facts.

Anonymous said...

Jim Lasser says that if each of the villages paid it's "fair" share, there would be more money for parks and recreation because the tax base from which the money is raised would be almost twice as large.

Sure. You can make the same argument for each service that the villages and the town perform for their reidents. Mr. Lasser is really making an argument for blending the villages into the town and the villages disappear. Many would argue that this would be a good idea.

But it misses the real point. Villages are separate municipalities from the town. The only reason that villages are part of the town is because the New York State Constitution doesn't recognize villages unless they are part of a town. Since village services duplicate town services, including parks, they should be kept separate and funded separately.

Whatever happened many years ago, these days most village parks are open to everybody, but only the villages pay for them. Why should villages pay 100% for their parks and 50% for town parks while unincorporated area residents pay 50% for their parks and 0% for village parks.

It would be nice if some in unincorporated Greenburgh could be half as neighborly as village residents are.

Jim Lasser said...

Mr. Lasser is NOT making an argument for blending the villages into the Town. I believe the villages have every right to maintain their parks, police departments, assessors' offices as separate and discrete units for whatever reason they choose. But, making that choice does not relieve them of the financial obligations of being a part of the Town of Greenburgh; the costs of maintaining those separate services is the result of a choice - not an imposition on the Villages by the unincorporated area or the Courts.
It isn't Bob Bernstein's fault - or even his doing. It is the result of the unfortunate way in which the Town of Greenburgh has chosen to interpret and then apply NY State Law. As the Villages chose to exercise their rights and ask for a different interpretation, so too may the unincorporated area.
I cannot imagine any Village resident I know who would make everyone living in the unincorporated areas second class citizens - and exercising our rights does not make us the enemy.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lasser, that's because you refuse to recognize the reality that villages and the town are two separate municipalities, each providing the same services to their respective residents.

Jim Lasser said...

I do recognize the difference - I'm asking why it is so important to you to draw the distinction between village and town at the services level. Why not dissolve your village and join the Town. Is there something inherently inferior about the Town? If there is not, save your tax money and disincorporate your village - join the unincorporated area. If, on the other hand, you believe there is something inherently inferior about being unincorporated, then why not support Edgemont's exploration of villagization. Or do you believe that one cannot change one's destiny and that it is somehow wrong to try?

Anonymous said...

Lasser grow up - racism is real and remains the most important and undiscussed issue in Greenburgh. Your interlocutor won't tell you to get your liberal jewish ass out of his white christian community, but he sure as hell would like to...

Anonymous said...

If I am the interlocutor that Anonymous 3:12 is referring to, I would suggest that he get his ass out of his head, if that is possible, which I doubt. My comments were based on functioning government, not the bigotry that Anonymous 3:12 seems to live by.

But to answer Mr. Lasser, who is one of the few bloggers from Edgemont who talks sense rather than paranoia. I have read the SCOBA report and I have come to understand how villages were created and the looniness of the laws. It had nothing to do with keeping African-Americans out. It was because villages had semi-urban populations and needs and towns were totally rural. What is needed is a wholesale revision of the laws, so as to make it impossible for people in Edgemont to applaud the unfair laws when those laws give them a couple of dollars, but rant and rave when those laws give the villages an edge.

Government favors reducing the number of municipal units, but nobody wants to change things, so villages will never goive up their autonomy and become part of the town. Town people, especially Edgemont people, don't want to be part of the town either, they want to be a village. So what you say has no reality. The best we can do is stop smearing each other and look for a fair answer to the problems. Part of it is to recognoze that a rich area has some responsibility to help a poorer area. Humanity, has anybody remembered that word?

Jim Lasser said...

Dear Anonymous at 3:40 -
I agree, let's leave 3:121 out of the discusssion. Still, if, as you say and with which I agree, fewer governments would be better, you haven't given me an answer to the question I asked. Why is it important to maintain the separate (but equal?) services? No one wants a change is not an answer - and isn't true. There are many Edgemonters who want a change - are there no Villagers who do? There is no question it would be challenging - but just because it is not now the way it should/could be is no reason to leave it alone. The whole history of social progress is one of changing "the way things have always been." Hal Samis keeps saying "it takes three" but in these cases it takes only one person at a time. We can change it - if we want to and aren't afraid of guys like 3:12.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lasser, I agree that it would be better to have one unit rather than villages and towns. Question, what is the right size? Is it the 90,000 that is Greenburgh with the villages? Is it 45,000 that is unincorporated Greenburgh now? What is efficient at the local level? How big are the city of White Plains and New Rochelle?

If you and I could change the world, or Greenburgh, it might be a better place. But we can't because the forces against change are as powerful as the NRA.

So maybe the better hope is that the laws come to recognize the realities that exist, that villages are separate municipalities, and deal with those realities.

Jim Lasser said...

An entire region of the country was once firmly opposed to an important cultural change. If you think the NRA is powerful, think back on some dozen state legislatures and the Congress of the United States. It has taken a long time, but the law of the land is no longer defined by Plessy v. Ferguson - now it's Brown v. Board of Education.
Greenburgh is the second largest municipality in Westchester. Sure, the efficiencies of scale would have a piositive effect on our taxes, but so would more political clout at the County and State levels - and that clout is directly proportional to size.
Neighborhoods are the glue which hold a good city together, and we can continue to have strong neighborhoods. But, to borrow an old idea, there is no Edgemont or Irvington or Dobbs Ferry way to collect the garbage or sweep the streets. Sharing of services should result in more, better and less expensive services for all.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein contributed money to town council members, hoping that they would support his efforts to shift tax increases to the villages. He wanted something for his money.

Anonymous said...

" ... stop smearing each other and look for a fair answer to the problems."

Agreed. No clue who this Lasser guy is, but he seems to always be looking for fair answers by providing real info and options.

villages need an independent town council said...

Feiner solicited tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers with applications pending before the town in violation of the town's ethics code.

For each contribution received, Feiner acted as the developer's private lobbyist, putting his own political interests ahead of the people.

When confronted, Feiner refused to return any of the money and refused to recuse himself from any of the developers' matters before him. If any village official did what Feiner did, he or she would be removed from office.

Bernstein supported town council candidates who stood for good government and promised to be independent of Feiner.

Thanks to the town council, Feiner was prevented this year from giving away to the Valhalla School District the rest of the $6.5 million in town-wide taxpayers dollars that the state comptroller said Feiner had given away illegally and without cause.

And yes, the state comptroller specifically blamed Feiner personally for this, finding the arguments he made for giving town money away like this had no evidentiary support.

And who benefitted when the town council stopped Feiner from violating the law? Why village taxpayers, that's who.

And how did they benefit? Because those town-wide taxpayer dollars that Feiner was illegally giving away were taxpayer dollars that belonged to all of Greenburgh, including those town taxpayers who live in Greenburgh's villages.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bernstein, good article,but you forgot to mention a few things, the whole council voted in favor of Valhalla, Then when Your pal Sheehan came aboard he too voted in favor of Valhalla, So why do you always blame Feiner.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein writes so often, as anonymous or some transparent pseudonym, that he ought to be charged advertising rates. Except that his advertising doesn't work.

hal samis said...

Dear 11:01,

Feiner "gave away" money?
This is a serious charge that should be brought to the attention of various law enforcement agencies. Just whipping out the Town's checkbook and writing checks without any directive is the second cousin to embezzlement.

Or did you forget to state that the Town Board voted to make these payments. And when you mention that "the State Comptroller specifically blamed Feiner personally" do you think that gives the impression that he caught Feiner at home writing these checks or that he was pointing to the symbolic head of Greenburgh government, the Town Supervisor, a man named Feiner. Surely the State Comptroller is aware that the Town Supervisor cannot act unilaterally.

Or are you more deceptive than Feiner? At least we know Feiner's name.

Again, just three votes. Perhaps the State Comptroller isn't as conversant with the names of the Town Council. Perhaps he should be.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 9:32,

Everyone who watched that Town Council meeting saw Feiner use the crowd to bully the Council. The vote would not have happened otherwise.

When are we going to demand our money back???

Anonymous said...

Samis should re-read the state comptroller's report.

The report specifically rejected the explanations that Feiner himself gave the state comptroller for giving the money away.

According to the report, Feiner said the money was needed to compensate the Mayfair Knollwood neighborhood for having a home shelter in their midst. The state comptroller found no evidence to support any need for compensation.

According to the report, Feiner also told the state comptroller the money was needed to compensate Valhalla schools for the cost of educating the homeless children living at WestHelp. The state comptroller didn't find any evidence to support that claim either.

Once the state comptroller said the $6.5 million give-away to Valhalla was illegal and these findings became public, the four members of the town council voted to cancel the gift.

Feiner insisted that the Town still give the money away. If Feiner's running mates two years ago had won, those millions of dollars of town-wide tax dollars would still be pouring into Valhalla.

If Feiner and his running mates win this year, the Valhalla millions will start flowing again.

Anonymous said...

The State Comptroller said that the method for giving the grants was not legal. He didn't say that the grants were wrong. In fact, he told the town several ways to do it legally.

So if the Town Council wanted to keep its promise they could do it. Feiner, at least, believes that when you make a promise you ought to keep it. Not a bad ethical position.

hal samis said...

Dear 10:20,
Dear 9:57,

Without re-reading, I have no problem with allowing that Feiner was noted but this does not convey the conclusion that he was singled out. The State Comptroller addresses the "perceived" Town head, the Town Supervisor who happens to be Feiner. Thus the explanations that the State Comptroller found fault with are the same reasons that the Town Council bought into when they voted. Changing their vote after the Comptroller intervened is not the equivalent of inventing the light bulb.

Feiner "used the crowd" to "bully" the Town Council to vote in favor does not speak well of the Town Council. Were they just seeking voter favor because some people showed up? Did they vote against their better judgement just to appease the crowd? Were they afraid of being lynched? Call me naive or call me stupid but isn't the Town Council supposed to vote according to what is correct and proper; not to be bend in whichever direction the wind blows?
There were five votes in favor and if four can wriggle off the hook because that was the popular way to vote, then the fifth vote should also be excused.

All five electees comprise the Town Board. If they all vote the same way, then they all will sink or swim as the result.

There is no "free parking" on the Town Board.

Just three votes.

Anonymous said...

If Samis had read the state comptroller's report, he'd know that the report does in fact single Feiner out-- and with good reason.

Thus, not only does the report find the gift to be illegal in multiple respects (illegal to use town taxpayer money for other than town-wide purposes and illegal to use town taxpayer money to fund school district expenses), as well as unconstitutional in others (unconstitutional to give town taxpayer dollars to private foundation), but Feiner himself was faulted personally for coming up with bogus reasons to justify this $6.5 million give-away.

For those who haven't read it, the Report says as follows:

"Even if the grant were otherwise permissible, there would be concerns with the Town's rationale and development of the grant amount, as follows:

--There is no evidence to support the Town Supervisor's claim that the homeless shelter would have an adverse impact on the community.

--There is no documentation to support the Town Supervisor's claim that approximately 20% of the children that live at the WestHELP shelter would attend Valhalla schools. For example, no children resided at the facility . . . for the month of May 2006."

There is no question that had Feiner's running mates in 2005 been elected, the millions of town tax dollars would still be pouring into Valhalla, and there's no question that if his running mates are elected, the money spigot will flow once more.

Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous: Can we place a homeless shelter next to you? Would you object?
Most people don't want to live near a shelter. The WESTHELP partnership helped solve a problem. The Supervisor and Town Board members who voted for the agreement (along with county officials and WESTHELP officials who signed on to the agreement) turned this into a win-win situation. Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes and Diana Juettner voted for the WESTHELP agreement with Feiner.

Anonymous said...

And, please don't forget, Mr. Feiner kept insisting on repeatedly telling the council and the public that he had a legal opinion, which turned out to be an unsigned worthless note. Had the "great communicator" put a copy of the "legal opinion" on the town website -- where he puts everything else, the council might not have approved.

Anonymous said...

For 12:03. Bernstein, why are you spending all your time on this blog. Don't you have any clients? Maybe you don't.

For 1:22. A memorandum from a lawyer to his client is a legal opinion, even if it is not signed. Clients don't usually require written opinions when their lawyer tells them what they can do. I don't think 12:03, pardon, Bernstein, would argue about that. I am sure that he has written memorandums with legal opinions to his clients without signing them and they have relied on his memorandums.

Anonymous said...

The unsigned piece of paper that Feiner called his "legal opinion" never said the gift would be legal. That wasn't the question the lawyer was asked.

In fact, despite assuring us that he had many such opinions, Feiner was not able to produce any legal opinion from anyone saying the gift was legal.

The lesson to be learned is not to take Feiner's word anymore.

Anonymous said...

So, Bernstein, aren't you saying that the other four persons on the Town Board also acted without a legal opinion? Or did they rely on the same advice that Feiner did. Ot to put it the way Samis would put it, where were the three votes against the agreement? Or even one vote against it?

Or are you really saying that the other four Town Board people were just dummies being manipulated by Feiner?

Let's hear a full explanation from you, since you seem to know everything.

Anonymous said...

I am not Bernstein, but what I said was that the Council relied on Feiner saying he had a legal opinion on the transaction.

Anonymous said...

To 2:22. How do you know what Feiner told the Council five years ago?

The Council is so busy covering their butts that now they will say anything. Besides, did they even say recently that they depended on Feiner's telling them about a legal opinion? I never read about is and I didn't hear about it at Town Board meetings.

I wasn't for Feiner at first, but since I have read the slanders about him I will vote for him and Morgan and Brown because I have lost all trust in the present Town Council and their puppet, Berger.

Anonymous said...

Yeah right, vote for Feiner and the rest of his "team" and you can kiss goodbye the rest of that $6.5 million Feiner wants Valhalla to have. That's another $4.7 million.

Oh wait, you must be from Mayfair Knollwood. You guys think this money belongs to you.

hal samis said...

What is it that Bass, Barnes and Berger will do differently if they are elected?

What is their platform?

Can it be that they expect to run without taking a stand on anything?

C'mon Bob, put your clients on the stand.

hal samis said...

Actually, let me ask these questions.

To Bass, Barnes and Berger:

How would you prevent flooding in Hartsdale? For simplicity, let's just discuss this one area.

Would you allow the Villages to use the facilities at Town Park. If so, under what circumstances?

When can we expect the first new sidewalk to be built by the Town?
Who will be paying for it?

If the Library runs out of money before the construction is completed, what do you propose to solve the shortfall?

If there is no sidewalk and someone gets killed enroute to the Greenburgh Health Center by a car swerving onto the mini modal "sidewalk", will you be sorry?

I assume that those running for office have some ideas, not just complaints. Let's hear from you.

Anonymous said...

So Anonymous 4:35 doesn't like it when someone from Mayfaid Knollwood expects some consideration. He thinks that only Edgemont is entitled to get consideration.

That's what is wrong with the Town Council. Edgemont isn't Greenburgh. We count too.

Anonymous said...

I do not think the villages will follow Edgemont in the way that they will be voting .If they do they deserve what will be a total disaster, since the Edgemont civic associations are already planning a victory party since they have four council members on their side. The planning was done a long time ago .Walking through the area was just the icing on the cake. It goes to show the villages how close the members are to certain residents.Remember villagers, what Edgemont wants they will get and the hell with the rest of the town.They are giving Feiner,Brown, Morgan and Belvill plent of ammunition to plan their platform. I,m sure we will be hearing from them real soon.

Anonymous said...

Could someone name anything that Edgemont has received from the Town of Greenburgh in the past five years?

Edgemont asked for a law outlawing flag lots. After a flag lot developer's lawyer gave Feiner a contribution, the matter was taken off the agenda and never raised again.

Edgemont asked that a sidewalk be constructed so that kids would have a safe place to walk to their elementary school. Feiner was opposed. Edgemont got nothing.

Edgemont asked that the snow be removed from the sidewalk on Ardsley Road. Feiner said he was all in favor -- but refused to budge when he saw the law required that the cost be a town-wide charge. So Edgemont got nothing.

Edgemont asked last year for a moratorium on construction of multi-family dwellings along Central Avenue. Edgemont got nothing.

Edgemont asked for a representative on the Town's Comprehensive Plan Committee. Edgemont was told no.

Getting nowhere with the Town over the past several years is what's fueling Edgemont's interest in forming its own village.

Unlike Mayfair Knollwood, Edgemont never asked for anything that was illegal or unconstitutional or which would have cost the town millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars. Mayfair Knollwood got millions until the state blew the whistle. Edgemont got nothing.

Anonymous said...

Just who is Edgemont? I keep hearing Edgemont wants this, and Edgemont never asked for any thing. I am confused who is this guy?

hal samis said...

Dear 6:30,
Poor, poor, pitiful Edgemont. When you cried me a river, your tears flooded Hartsdale. So cut it out.

You ask what has the Town done for you? Fair question. However, then you name Feiner as the responsible party for every misfortune. Does that conclusion stick with you when Town taxes are due, do you make the check out to the Town of Greenburgh or do you make the check out to Paul Feiner. There is a difference isn't there?

Let's list your grievances.

Flag lots, (just three votes).

Sidewalks, (just three votes).

Snow removal, (just three votes).

Moratorium on multi-family construction*, (just three votes).

Representative on comprehensive plan committee, (just three votes).

*hey here's one you "got", has there been any multi-family construction since you alerted real estate developers of your urgent quest?

So where are your good friends on the Town Council. Mr. Bernstein goes walking with Steve Bass. Mr. Bernstein makes a contribution to Mr. Bass. Which of the above has Mr. Bass voted for?

Eddie Mae Barnes lives in Edgemont.
Which of the above has she voted for? When is Mr. Bernstein going for a walk with her?

Francis Sheehan also was a beneficiary of Mr. Bernstein's largesse. Which of the above has he voted for?

Shhhh. Don't wake up Ms Juettner.

In summation, let me quote Stephen Stills on Feiner's incumbency.

"Don't be angry, don't be sad;
don't sit crying over good times you've had,
you've got to love the one you're with".

And, by the way, regarding legal gifting, did the Edgemont School District accept cable studio gifts (Central 7 too) from the Town's cablevision PEG fees? Paid for by unincorporated subscribers, but not shared with all school districts serving unincorporated. As a cable subscriber who paid into this fund, I'd don't see the townwide benefit. Give it back Edgemont!

Anonymous said...

Edgemont is part of greenburgh, your better off not knowing about it.It means trouble.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that Valhalla (Mayfair Knollwood) wants to be Edgemont, if only they could get their $6.5 million back.

Anonymous said...

Legal gifting of cable
tv PEG money?

Let's review the bidding. In 1995, town enters into 10-year contract with Cablevision. Over ten-year period, town gets $550,000 in PEG money, and keeps it all for itself.

PEG money is supposed to be spent on equipment for three town-wide cable channels -- one for Public access, one for Education and one for the local town Government.

For the past 17 years, the Education Channel has remained dark, except for occasional programming from WCC.

Two years ago, residents pointed this out and suggested that an Education channel might have gotten off the ground in unincorporated Greenburgh if the town hadn't been so piggy and given money to the local school districts to buy equipment that could be used for producing town-wide cable shows.

Both Central 7 and Edgemont applied for PEG grants. Other school districts in town could have applied too, but Central 7 and Edgemont are the only two school districts entirely within the town's unincorporated areas.

Unlike the town's other school districts, they don't have a village government that can dole out the PEG money to support educational programming in their respective villages.

In any event, in contrast to the millions of town taxpayer dollars given away illegally to Valhalla. Central 7 and Edgemont got (legally) only a time slice (no more than five figures)of the $550,000 that the town collected.

And the programs they produce are shown townwide (albeit at unusual and irregular times), thereby at long last putting Central 7 and Edgemont on the same footing in terms of cable access as every other school district in Greenburgh has been for years.

hal samis said...

Dear 10:04,
Apparently every other school district in Greenburgh got there on their own and years ahead. Only poor Edgemont and wealthy Central 7 needed help from the Town's stewardship of the capital equipment fund.

Furthermore, are you saying that is the obligation of Governments to dangle money in front of School Boards? I thought they were supposed to be independent, both politically and financially.

Anonymous said...

Federal law mandates that, as a condition of the local cable franchise, cable franchisees must provide local governments with equipment to operate an educational channel.

Greenburgh's cable contract on behalf of unincorporated Greenburgh called for Cablevision to pay the town $550,000 to cover the cost of equipment to operate channels for educational,public access and government.

During Feiner's 16-year tenure in office, Greenburgh has never came up with a plan to its equipment funds to operate any educational channel for the unincorporated area, and the town's cable TV advisory board has long since quit in disgust.

The "dangling" of money to local school districts was a resident-driven attempt two years ago to get Greenburgh to give its residents what federal law says they're legally entitled to have -- an educational channel -- by getting local school districts to apply for cable equipment money so that they may participate in operating an educational channel.

Other school districts in Greenburgh and the rest of Westchester County got their "first" because, unlike Greenburgh's government which never saw this as a priority, their respective local governments complied with the federal mandate to get an educational channel in their service areas up and running.

By law, local franchisors, like the town, are legally responsible for the content of any school-sponsored programming, but consistent with the First Amendment, the town may not dictate what that content may be.

Anonymous said...

Some of the topics that come up on this blog deserve genuine discussion, because the Town government has messed up.

But there will never be genuine discussion as long as every topic becomes an avenue for bashing Feiner.

Doesn't the previous blogger know that during Feiner's sixteen year tenure there was a Town Council, and that two of its current members also have sixteen year tenures.

If you want to deal with issues of governmental failures then you have to deal with the government, not play the bash-Feiner game. As Hal Samis reminds us every day -- just three votes.

Anonymous said...

Feiner may like to pretend he's just one of three votes, but that's no excuse when you're a town supervisor in New York.

Greenburgh voters are smart. They know state law makes Feiner and nobody else, the town's "chief executive officer" who shall be responsible for "the proper administration of town affairs" and that he and no on else "shall keep the town board informed generally concerning town affairs and of the financial condition and future needs of the town and make such recommendations as may seem to him desirable."

Feiner may be seeking re-election as the town's "put upon gadfly," as The New York Times called him two years ago. But Feiner needs to understand that the job by law requires that he be much more than that and that he take responsibility for his actions, or inactions, as the town's only full-time elected executive.

Blaming the town council for letting him get away with his failures all these years is hardly a ringing endorsement for anyone's re-election, much less Feiner's.

Anonymous said...

See what I mean? You can't even have a discussion about having a discussion without the blame-Feiner game erupting.

hal samis said...

What 11:35 should do is read what he has written.

The Town Supervisor (CEO) should
"make recommendations".

These recommendations then go to a vote by the entire Town Board which includes the Supervisor and the Town Council.

The Town Board is composed of five voting members; each vote is equal.
So when the Town Board actually votes they may follow the recommendation of the Town Supervisor or not. If the Supervisor advocates a position, likely he will vote for it. In this case, with the support of two members of the Town Council, the issue will be ratified. On the other hand, if three members do not like what they are hearing, then the issue will not pass.

And, if the Supervisor's recommendation is so off the wall, nothing stops the Town Council from proposing an alternative or counter measure and this too will pass if only three of them vote in favor.

The point, after stripping away all of the fancy state law CEO cloaking, is that it all comes down to the vote, whoever makes the recommendation or is the sponsor.

So again, I say "just three votes".
And will continue to say so.

Anonymous said...

Feiner is guilty as charged - for impersonating a town supervisor. Time to drop the curtain on this farce.

Anonymous said...

Farce?????

What about permitting town employees to threaten citizens?

What about the so-silent majority of the Town Bard just sitting and watching, because a censure would be a bad reflection on their future political careers?

That's the farce!

Anonymous said...

Dear 4:40

You are right but this is the problem; unless an outside investigation is started concerning the Sheehan/Kaminer Superintendant Incident, you are whistling past the graveyard. Sheehan has already succeeded in covering up the incident. Neither the Journal News or News 12 have run any stories on this clear cut violation of 1st Amendment Rights. Barnes and Juetner have foresaken their fellow female public servant in favor of the Bully. What is needed is someone close to anyone at the Jounal News or News 12 to convince them of taking up the story. The other option would be to solicit the assistance of Women's Groups. Until measures are taken like I have outlined above, Sheehan wins on this issue hands down.