Monday, July 16, 2007


Please feel free to post your comments about town issues.



Jolly Blogger said...

Good morning! How was everyones weekend?

What will be the drama de jour?

town suffering from feiner fatigue said...

another week and feiner still has not posted a simple accounting of the westhelp money (but had plenty of time to assist developers who want to violate the town's zoning laws)

now we hear of a notice of claim in the millions filed by the east hartsdale merchants against the town for failing to do something about the known flooding danger

the town has a bad case of feiner fatigue and this doctor says its time for surgery!

Anonymous said...

Who says Feiner knew about the prior flooding issues or the clogged sewers? Wasn't it the DPW who knew? How do we know that they shared that info with anyone else? We don't.

Not a Feiner fan but I'm suffering from *Feiner bashing fatigue* So much information here is distorted because of these self serving bashings. I want REAL information and this blog is becoming an unreliable source. It’s a shame.

Anonymous said...

if feiner would just leave we could accomplish two things:

1. end of feiner fatigue
2. end of feiner bashing

Anonymous said...

If Sheehan and Bass would just leave, we could accomplish two things:

1. end of feiner fatigue
2. end of feiner bashing

Anonymous said...

Even if Bass and Sheahan were gone, there would still be criticsm of feiner for:

1. The Valhalla deal
2. Taxter Ridge
3. Continual selling out to developers
4. The proposed "methadone clinic throught the town" zoning.

I guess you would call this Feiner bashing.

Anonymous said...

Everything you complain about received the unanimous vote of the Town Board. Possibly, or probably, some of these things were initiated by other members of the Town Board.

Despite all your complaining, Greenburgh has been a well-run town. If you are looking for perfection, wait for the next world.

Not until the current Town Council did we have a collapse of government, posturing, pontificating by Sheehan, and making everything into a battle. Feiner is no paragon of management, but I'd trust him lots more than the Council pack.

Anonymous said...

You're right on the button. It seems because Sheehan is so power hungry he has minipulated the the other three council members into this deceitful web,to overthrow Feiner,The good thing is that feiner has run a good town . an open government, Whereas the council have been working behind the supervisors back to do him more harm. Guess what,the council is starting to show the public what a bunch of coniving liars they are.The coming election is very important for all of the residents to put Feiner back in office without 2 of the council members now present. Then maybe the other two will resign. After this Dromore incident, I cannot see why all four council members wont be planning to resign.Not one of them has shown honesty in this matter.

The person who wants information on the Westhelp problem give a call to Heslop. But remember all four previous council members voted for the grant, and recently Sheehan the commander in chief voted with the others to give Valhalla the money that was still in the account.Stop blaming Feiner alone they all are accomplises.

Green Burgher said...

Dear Supervisor Feiner -
Please post the "Exhibits" referred to in the affidavit. This request is made in the interest of Open Government, so I am sure you will hasten to comply.

hal samis said...

If Feiner were not sponsoring this forum for all residents, those with names and those without, then there would be one less venue for these comments to be aired.

Whether they be "for" or "against", no one is required to either read or write comments.

Meanwhile I would like to remind every one this week that the Town Council still has four votes (even 2 + 2 = 4, even if any members have to "visit the facilities" and can't join the others around the table.

Just three votes.

So please feel free to use the blog for Town Council fatigue and
Town Council bashing. Why hold only the Supervisor responsible if any policies can be voted for, voted against or amended by three of the four Town Council votes.

Nothing that Feiner has done "wrong" has been blocked or overturned by the Town Council. If one person consistently gets it wrong, how do you explain a block of four people following in his footsteps?

If the Town Council didn't like Feiner's sidewalk policy, surely four Council Members and their aide can come up with one of their own.

If Feiner can't or won't get the Town Comptroller to provide a WESTHELP accounting -- and assuming that anyone really wants to see it -- why doesn't the Town Council step in and insist that the Town Comptroller produce it?
The Town Council has the ability to fire the Town Comptroller for not doing his job.

If Feiner ignored the Hartsdale flooding danger, was it just a secret or did the Town Council know too.

And, I really don't think it will prove wise in the long term for bloggers to confuse the Dromore issue with the politics. The developer's issue is strictly one of Zoning laws; he has no interest or concerns in the Supervisor vs. Town Council imbroglio. He bought a property because he believed it was zoned to build multi-family and apparently the Planning Commissioner says that the developer (and according to the developer's affidavit, at the time also the Planning Commissioner himself) is wrong. The matter will be determined by the ZBA Thursday and the developer has also filed a notice of intent (not binding) to pursue the matter in the Civil Courts should the ZBA rule against him.

But the larger issue and more of topical interest to bloggers is whether the Town Council, specifically Bass and Sheehan, acted not in the best interests of the Town of Greenburgh but in the best interest of Edgemont and skirted Town laws and ethics laws in so doing. We shall see how this plays out over the next weeks.

if feiner just left said...

if feiner would leave we would (and should) be rid of

1. garfunkel
2. rosenberg

hal samis said...

If Feiner were to leave, would we be rid of Bernstein, McNally, Bass, Barnes, Juettner and Sheehan?
If so, I'd support that deal.

BW said...

Thanks for sharing the WestHelp balance sheet info. Great to see that nothing crooked occurred.

Edgemont makes blogging fun said...


I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer a few questions I have that are "off topic" to help me understand something that confuses me. It's unrelated to this thread.
Would it be possible for me to email you?

If so, where?

Anonymous said...

I do hope that there will be many accountants looking at this report other than the Feiner haters. Many of you were told that there was nothing wrong,but because hate blinded you this was impossible to be true. Well what's up now ,what say you about Feiner's honest .

Dan from Hartsdale said...

I agree with the implication of Mr. Samis' statement that the entire disfunctional current board, including Mr Feiner, should just retire. Let some new people enjoy living off our tax dollars, start afresh and put this period acrimony behind us. I can't believe that Mr. Feiner really loves this job so much and feels it's worth all the abuse. On another note, I very highly recommend that the adminstrator of this blog require that posters register and choose a name, real or otherwise, to identify their posts consistently so the rest of us can more easily follow the discussion (that would reveal too, if, as i suspect, there are only 3 or 4 active posters behind all those anonymous statements).

Anonymous said...


How do you know that the developer bought the property beleiving it could be developed into mult-family? The price doesnt reflect that? Becuase he told you? HaHaHa

Anonymous said...


This is a town linked website. I think the town get rid of the link. If Feiner wants to support developers in their battles against the town, he can do so. But not on our dime.

Anonymous said...

And now, Feiner's latest gimmick to use the website to attack opponents and avoid any reasonable discussion is to use such lenghy blogs they take up the entire page.

Anonymous said...

Now the lengthy blogs are bothering you. but it's alright when BB and JL use the blog to critize the supervisor.Nothing makes you happy because you want everything your way. See what happened to the four council members who wanted too too much ,they hopefully will be replaced. You don't have read or answer any of the blogs if you think it annoys you. Grow up.

hal samis said...

Dear laugh yourself sick @ 3:08, ha, ha.
If you aren't in real estate or a high school graduate, this will make no sense.

If the developer paid $1.4 million, the location and the acreage aren't desireable to build a replacement McMansion or even to build 2-3 single family homes in the $2 million dollar sales range. The selling price would reflect all costs, time, risk and profit.

If you were a prospective buyer would you pay $2 million to live on a small piece of land with 138 condo units on one side and a monastery on the other with no single family homes as neighbors? Not quite the neighborhood feel and too small to form their own civic association. Is being off Central Avenue really where the $2 million home buyer wants to be?

For $2 million as a buyer, I suspect that they could live almost anywhere in Edgemont and get better value as well as a neighborhood which "shares" the same values. Being among the potential one to three single homes on Dromore with the only other residential (other than the adjoining condos) the only other residential are the other nearby condo along Central Avenue. This is by no measure the location of choice for an affluent buyer. Even one who would be crazy about living across from the weekend congestion brought to his front door courtesy of the Nature Center.

Anonymous said...


I dont want to stoop to your level of insults, but I do think a reasonable person would find that 2 or 3 large homes could be built on the property, supporting the purchase price.

hal samis said...

He stoops to conquer.
Sorry high school was so difficult for you.

My point was that BUYERS with $2 MILLION to spend would choose a neighborhood which had a neighborhood feel, for example Old Edgemont. Or anywhere else in Edgemont.

How you could arrive at the conclusion that I doubted that the houses could be built is beyond me but I guess that not everyone scored in the triple digits on their SATs.

Once more, building three homes is not the question. WHO WOULD BUY THEM IS?

When you can afford the Mercedes, do you still buy the Chevvy?
Yes some people do but I hope that somebody in blogland understands the not too fine point.

'splain please said...

1) The Town of Greenberg co-sponsors (gives money to) the Edgemont Recreation Corporation to fund their segregated activities

2) Edgemont Recreation Corporation makes sizable donations to Scarsdale Teen Center

3) Edgemont Recreation Corporation makes sizable donations to The Edgemont schools


Anonymous said...

Hal, are you being deliberately obtuse. The 1.4 million land acquisition price could reasonably be split amongst 2 or 3 homes, resulting in a land cost of say $350,000 and a total land + building cost of say $1million. But have it your way. Your such an expert.

Anonymous said...

5:24 have you forgotten that Hal is a real estate person and also well educated in different fields to tell us the truth about facts and figures.Maybe you don't want to hear the truth. Hal is very seldom wrong in his comments. If your right he will say so but if your wrong you'll never hear the end.Hal does his homework before he speaks, a lot different from others who get information from the four council members or may I say the goofer Kaminer.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the owner can build three houses on the land (though I wouldn't want to live in one of them) but it is his property and he doesn't have to do what you want.

Anonymous said...

Why should he build three houses, The zoning was originally maped out for multi famity dwellings. Sheehan made sure that the map was changed .If the maps showed this on the purchase date then he should allowed to do what he wants. Edgemont could whistle dixie backwards.One does not hear of this circus in any other part of town,only in Edgemont. Voters be careful if Edgemont wins this ,we will not be as free as Americans should be.They rule the council and eventually all of us.

hal samis said...

Dear 2:25 (Edgemont makes blogging fun),

Call me

hal samis said...

I honestly don't understand why this is so difficult.

Builders build and home buyers buy.
Bulders stop building when they are stuck with houses and apartments that they can't sell.
A situation which makes their Lenders very nervous.

What the builder does is his business.

All I am saying, if the objective of a home buyer was to get his kids into the Edgemont School system and he had $2 million to buy a home to do this, aren't there many, many choices of homes for sale at prices $2 million and way under -- in more residential appearing neighborhoods i.e. those with single family homes?

Real estate 101, even when taken in conjunction with Greenburgh 101 still teaches location, location, location.

With $2 million to spend, would you rather live directly between a Monastery and 138 condominium apartments and right off commercially zoned Central Avenue. While directly across the street is the Nature Center with weekend traffic in and out of the parking lot and midweek bus traffic.

Builders have to be concerned with houses that can be sold, not just built. Perhaps in the $500,000 to $850,000 market buyers are less fussy but $2 million still needs more than just granite kitchen counters to swing the deal.

Is this simple enough yet?

Anonymous said...


Even without multi-family zoning, I think there was clearly enough room for 2 houses, maybe 3. But you're right, I dont really know. But assuming that many, then one allocates the $1.4 land cost to each of three houses that might sell for 900K, for a total of 2.7, or maybe two for 1.250. At that price, and with at least one neighbor, they will sell.

Anonymous said...

Are all of these bloggers real estate brokers?

Anonymous said...

No, just home owners and recent buyers of homes.

hal samis said...

Dear 8:53,
A house is a house apparently.


Land cost


Materials cost/finishings

Construction cost/labor





Time to find and secure subject property

Value of your equity

Cost of borrowed money to purchase and build

Legal fees (zoning, campaign contributions, closing costs)

Architect fees

Engineering fees

Town fees and permits


Office overhead

Accounting fees

Marketing cost/sales commissions

Taxes (local, state, federal)


AND HOPEFULLY, PROFIT for two years of labor, aggravation and your RISK

But, what if you spent your time on to sell three houses when you acquired it with the intention of doing a project that you could pocket over $15 million or more, going through mostly the same steps.

In business this is a real world item called "lost opportunity cost" and if all you have as an entrepreneur to sell is your time and skill, then doing it to make $500,000 or doing it to make $15 million, of the two which would you choose? People who are paid salaries don't understand this.

But since you know that "they will sell" but don't understand the need for profit, here's a great new business idea just for you.

How about selling $10.00 bills for $9.00? If they don't move you can always drop the price to $8.00. I bet you can do millions of dollars of sales in just your first year. In fact, I guarantee it; even if I have to buy them all myself.

Anonymous said...


The problem is that the land isnt zoned for the 15mil project. It would need rezoning for that. And even contributing $$ to Feiner doesnt guarantee that. So yes, there is risk.

Anonymous said...

I cant beleive the people here saying that Sheehan changed the zoning. The zoning was never multi-family. The maps were wrong. Why isnt Feiner taking responsiblity for that?

Anonymous said...

For a few weeks Feiner haters have blogged away, criticizing the supervisor for not accounting for WESTHELP funds. Unfortunately, for the Feiner haters, the supervisor came out clean and accounted for every penny.
Let's think of a new cause to complain about.

Anonymous said...

Check Sheehan out as to who changed the existing map. How could everyone at town hall be wrong with their interpitation of the map .The zoning,planning and building departments all read it before making a statement that it was multifamily.Could they all be wrong. Something is wrong here and funny that Sheehan found this mistake not too long ago.Some stated that Feiner should have known how the map read, well did you ever stop to think that he read it before it was altered. .

Anonymous said...

ARe you saying you think Feiner knew map was wrong, and then told developer to move quickly before any one else realized that it was?

Anonymous said...

Feiner probably didn't know the map was wrong, but he should have. It's the supervisor's job to put his signature on the town's official zoning map.

That way the supervisor can check to make sure that the map's been drawn in accordance with what the town board has authorized.

Feiner never did his job. The last time he actually reviewed and signed a zoning map was in 1992.

The map error arose in 1996 when the town created a conservation overlay zone.

hal samis said...

Dear Robby,

Today's New York Times entertainment section reports on new downtown cabaret attractions, circa Weimar/Berlin.

Greenburgh already has its own theater of the absurd.

The 9:37 comment is a cute touch of propoganda hiding out as an "innocent" question but really planting a seed and hoping it will grow into a movement.

How about if I plant a seed too.

Francis Sheehan has already taken over the Greenburgh government by his own version of "lighting attack". Is anschluss the correct word?

First he has the Zoning Board in his corner. Then he appoints himself the Land Use Committee head. Then he appoints himself the Comprehensive Plan Committee head. Already he has more power than Iagallo ever had. He's become the go-to person for any new development. And as a sideline, he is the public face of the ethics law reviews, the verizon negotiations, the WESTHELP witch hunt and a few sundries here and there. And that's just for his first 18 months in office. Surely having Sheehan is not what Lasser envisioned as the uber solution. Bass had best find a new outlet for his own ambitions because Greenburgh is booked solid.

And read carefully the Troy affidavit and you can see what's ahead when the Sheehan/Bernstein/McNally cell feels cocky enough to ignore the formalities and give everyone the finger out in the open.

Berger is the window dressing device to hand the reigns over. She wins, she resigns (immediate response needed for her presence in Albany) before her term is over and Sheehan becomes deputy supervisor in his calendar quarter and when a special election is called, who else is around to unseat the new "incumbent"?

Game, set, match.
Enter the "Reign of Error"

Or in question form:

Are you saying that to avoid having to disclose the secret agenda and discussions of the meeting with the developer, that Sheehan and Bernstein took pains to see that three Town Council members were not there at the same time?

Hartsdale Home Owner said...

I very much enjoy your posts and find them very informative too. I'm relative outsider (here only four years) who finds all this heated squabbling over our own little pottersville rather pathetic and amusing at the same time. I'm looking for some explanation over what would be the practical consequence to a Hartsdale homeowner, like me, for example if someone like Sheehan - or anyone else - became Supervisor instead of Feiner being reelected? I have nothing against Feiner - I assume he is honest and has the best intentions and should be admired for his years of (paid) public service. But let's be honest - if he would be defeated this year, what would be his legacy after 14 years in office? Objectively you would have to say two things stand out, even though though they are not particularly his fault: (1) he presided over the dramatic decline of the largest school district in his domain from mediocre to completely segregated and shunned and (2) the emergence of incredibly devisive and angry rhetoric and tension among towns and villages and neighborhoods. Even his obvious accomplishments (the impressive Parks) are clouded by the issue of allocating the cost. Is being good-hearted and a well-meaning enough for public official? Would anyone else have done better/ worse?

Feiner should make travel plans said...

impressive parks?

Harts Brook is a mess and Taxter Ridge cannot even be found. Most of the parks were acquired before Feiner's arrival. Lets not overlook Feiner's inaction in allowing Presser Park to go to seed by overuse by non-residents and his pushing of that hideous memorial wall. He needs to pack his bags.

Anonymous said...

Feiner has contributed to the divisiveness by allowing Garfunkel to be his spokesperson and campaign manager. Garfunkel is scary in the way all true believers are.

Anonymous said...

Here are answers to Hartsdale home owner, and I am definitely not Hal Samis.

The town Supervsor and the Town Board have absolutely nothing to do with the school district. They can't help and they can't harm. For the problems in the schools you have to look to the School Board, to the parents, and to some extent to factors beyond anybody's control.

The incredible divisiveness is not Feiner's fault. It began because an Edgemont resident named Bob Bernstein started lawsuits, and made power plays principally because he wants Edgemont to become a separate village. A few other Edgemont people support him on that. He is using the threat of organizing Edgemont voters to get control of the Town Board, and the best target is Feiner. So don't blame Feiner for it. Sheehan has become an absolute dictator who uses every opportunity to humiliate Feiner, and sadly Sheehan is pretty good at these tactics. Bass is not only a career politician (nothing wrong with that) but his method of advancing is to work Feiner over. We never had this divisiveness before the Bernstein-Sheehan-Bass clique took over.

The reason the parks issue is clouded is because Bernstein has brought a lawsuit. A decision of the court will come soon, and that will remove the cloud.

For you, as a Hartsdale resident, you should be wary of Sheehan and Bass and their designated hitter, Suzanne Berger. They all are in bed with Bernstein, and if Bernstein succeeds in getting Edgemont to become a separate village -- something which will become much easier if he has the Supervisor and the Town Council's support -- every other part of unincorporated Greenburgh will either have enormous tax increases or else have a deep cut in services.

Feiner has his falts, but he is not for butchering Greenburgh, as Bernstein and his Town Council friends are.

Anonymous said...

1. If Bernstein is winning the lawsuits, doesnt that mean that Feiner has not been fair.

2. Why are Ardsley, etc allowed to be villages and not any one who wants? Becuase Feiner lives there?

3. Edgemont does not have a disproportionate amount of taxable ratables. The problem is the villages do, but dont pay for the useless parks like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Let me tell you about Sheehan. If he should become the supervisor watch out.This man is a forensic science[so he says]professor. Let me tell you how smart he is.
one of the police in our area was accused of a crime [which Sheehan made sure that he fired him].After one year Sheehan takes the whole town board into the woods looking for human waste . After one year,with all the rain and snow. Is this someone who has brains. I really don't think so. He only knows how to intimidate people [those that could be].He hired a patsy to be a goffer and a spy at town hall. He controlls the press together with this patsy.he lied about his opponent in the election. He has taken over town hall that many fear him [he is sick for power].

After all is said and done there is no reason that Berger should be elected to the supervisor's job,if it's a temporary position for her because she is looking to become a judge.With her leaving Greenburgh Sheehan would become a fill in supervisor. Too much for us to have even for a few months.

Sheehan also awarded her firm with a multi million dollar contract .He had three council members sold that this was the right thing to do,--because he was looking to his future,not the residents pockets.This was done at his request not to have other firms interview.
Is this the person that you want to represent Greenburgh, I dont think so.

Hartsdale Home Owner said...

To anonymous 12:12 & 12:22:
Honestly, i have no axe to grind against Mr. Feiner. But if the best defense of his record you can present is by attacking other people, that's not a very convincing list of his accomplishments in 14 years or a very good reason to vote for him this year. As I wrote, the dissension and schools are really not his fault, but, just like Reagen is fairly/unfairly given credit for the fall of communism, you can't deny these developments occured during Feiner's long administration. Again, what is his legacy? Tell me why I should vote for him - not why I should vote against someone else (that tactic didn't work too well for John Kerry).

hal samis said...

Dear 12:12,

Thanks for pitch-hitting but I am not taking myself out of the game just yet.

Being honest, you made the natural mistake which is to fall into the trap and take the "new" Hartsdale resident at his word. Isn't Hartsdale Home Owner at 11:32 a "reasonable" man?

Second chapter of the dummy's guide to propoganda says that it is easier to convert people to your way of thinking if you ease into it gradually and start from a common ground of agreement.

A chapter I read but seldom bother to follow.

Ergo even a 25 year resident of Edgemont writing under a nomme de plume can become a born again 4 year resident of Hartsdale (where I and others happen to live). Even a 4 year resident/historian who acknowledges Feiner's 14 years of office.

So to allay our suspicions he starts off addressing and agreeing with me while being sympathetic to Feiner for a few sentences until we get to "But let's be honest..."
Psychiatrists will tell you that BUT means denial. And honest is in the mind of the beholder.

From there it is downward to point out familiar problems, align Feiner with them; however "unwillingly" the blogger finds himself obligated to point to Feiner as the instigator and only to conclude that perhaps there is a choice other than Feiner.

All very well-mannered and civilized. And clever.

The industry buzz word for this process is "canalyze" which is the marriage of analyze and cannibalize. To take some parts truth that sound reasonable and familiar and then to work your own argument going forward from that point.

So 12:12, you took the blogger at his word and by responding without question, what you did was to lend credibility to the writer's bonafides. In these troubled times, all packages should be opened carefully and the contents searched, especially those bearing no return address. However there is a risk of the package exploding during the examination. It is often best to just chuck them unopened in the drowning pool.

feiner is brazenly corrupt said...

Bennett Kielsen (the town's "independent auditors") has contributed more than $1,000 to Feiner's campaign, including $550 on June 28, 2007, and another $250 earlier this year.

is there no end to Feiner's brazen corruption???

Anonymous said...

To Hartsdale home owner.

Unfortunately we are constantly confronted with the need to choose between two less than ideal persons -- put another way, the lesser of two evils.

Feiner's faults are that he often acts too quickly and viscerally. He will do things because he thinks that they are the right thing to do without considering that there are consequences which may be a problem. But I have never seen him do anyone any harm, or misuse his authority. If he says "yes" at times when "no" is the better answer, it is because he doesn't like to say "no" and he thinks that "yes" is the right answer. He is accessible and doesn't do sneaky things like holding secret meetings and threatening residents. All in all, on his watch the town hasn't done bad. That may be his legacy, if one needs a legacy.

If his challenger were better on these fronts I would say that 14 years is enough. But his challenger is not better, and mainly because she has identified herself with a group that is poised to do great harm to Greenburgh. All of Greenburgh. The favoritism to Edgemont is so obvious that I don't think I have to particularize, and this favoritism hurts all the unincorporated area of the town. The cold shoulder that these people give to the villages, which are half of the town, is what has caused this acrimony, and it is the opposite of what Feiner has tried to do, which is to have dialogue with the villages. What have these people done other than cause town government to become a hotbed of animosity?

So yes, there are two reasons for you to vote for Feiner. He is a more decent and accessible person, and the other side will cause more animosity than we have now once they have unchecked power.

If that means voting against rather than voting for, it is a good enough reason in this case, at least for me.

Anonymous said...

These are the Town's "independent" auditors?

Michael Kolesar said...

Dear Anonymous 7/16 12:16 PM,

Re your question # 2:
"Why are Ardsley etc allowed to be villages and not anyone who wants/ Because Feiner lives there."

First, Mr. Feiner does not live in the Village of Ardsley. He lives in a section of unincorporated Greenburgh. That section happens to be in the Ardsley School District. Not the same. A very significant portion of the Ardsley School District lies in unincorporated Greenburgh and I believe that between 40 and 45% of the present student population comes from unincorporated Greenburgh.

Second, one needs to understand a little of the history of the State of New York and the Town of Greenburgh. Under state laws, separate Villages are not permitted - they must be a part of a Town. The last Village to incorporated within the Town was I believe Elmsford about 1905 =/-. A proposed village becomes a village through a process that includes the affirmative votes of a sufficient number of the "proposed village's residents." (Please consult an attorney as I am just trying to simply summarize a process that is no doubt set forth in the state laws.) There is no bar to any area in the Town as far as I know from becoming a Village. Lots of issues and concerns, like sanitation, snow removal, administration, possibly police (although I believe that state law mandates that a Town provide police protection, if a Village opts out, share of existing Town debt, acquiring property for a Village government operation, etc..

Let's separate out facts from opinion. Both may be welcome, but let's not confuse them.

Hartsdale Home Owner said...

Mr Samis:
Please don't disillusion me when I look up to you! I hate to break this to you - but I am exactly who i represent myself to be. I have lived in Hartsdale for four years after moving from the city. I know about Feiner's 14 years b/c I paid attention in the last election 2 years ago and (unlike any of my peers that i know of in my neighborhood), i'm interested in local politics. Last time I voted for Mr. Greenwalt. I voted for him because he was a neighbor, he was dignified in his personal manner (a stark contrast with the horrifying performances I saw on the town meeting cable broadcasts -- and i'm sorry but the "problem solver" wagon makes me cringe) and b/c no one gave me a good reason to vote for Mr. Feiner (maybe I didn't look hard enough). This time around, I'm more wary of his opponents because of what I read here, but i'm not convinced that any supervisor makes a real difference, so I'm not sure who to vote for. But frankly, I still have a little buyer's remorse about moving into a town that seems to be on a gradual downward trajectory with inexorably increasing taxes. I would be happy to talk with you, email you or buy you a slice at Muzzarella (best pizza in the area!) to confirm my identity!

hal samis said...

Dear hartsdale homeowner,

I'm in the phone book!

Wonderful Idea said...

Mike Kolesar gave us great information and a solution to the Bob Bernstein problem.

Why doesn't Bernstein make a separate village out of his own property -- an acre, a half acre, or whatever. Michelle McNally can do the same. Then each can be mayors of their own villages, and be the Zoning Board, Planning Board. They can even be the village justices.

What a fantastic solution. And since they will still be in the town of Greenburgh, because a village has to be in the town, they will be able to vote for Sheehan and Bass and the two silent women.

They might even be invited to join the Village Officials Committee.

Anonymous said...

I think Feiner has shown he is not willing to be fair to all parts of town. At least now the council has wise up and stands up to him. Like his proposal to have the entire TOV subsidize volunteer firemen (as valuable as they are), when a lot of unincorporate greenburgh has paid firemen (like Hartsdale, Fairview and Glenville). So people in Hartsdale, etc. would be paying salaries of firemen and subsidizing the volunteers in Ardsley etc. Fortunately the council found a way to reward the volunteers and not charge the people who are already paying taxes for paid firemen. But if unchecked, Feiner would not have cared. This is part of why taxes go up, Feiner doesnt care about some parts of town and doesnt care about being fair.

Feiner in office too long said...

Feiner has been in office for 16 years not 14. Enough is enough. Im voting for Berger.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how Anon 2:55 can say that Feiner is not willing to be fair to all parts of town. The fireman's benefit is a nickel and dime thing.

If you want to talk about not being fair to all parts of the town, you should read the blog on the secret meetings at which the four Town Council people tried to help Bernstein get land for a separate village for Edgemont village hall. Or watch Board meetings and see how Edgemont gets everything at the expense of the rest of Greenburgh.

If you want fairness to the entire town the people you CAN'T vote for are Bass and Barnes and their tool Berger.

And this is from someone who voted for Sheehan and Juettner two years ago.

Feiner improperly attacking citzens said...

Bob and Michelle have been unfairly attacked by Feiner. They are private citizens who did absolutely nothing wrong. The idea of their conspiring with Feiner is beyond loony.

Several bloggers keep asserting Edgemont gets whatever it wants. Lets see three examples.

Stumped.... name two things.

Anonymous said...

The town did nothing for Edgemont on the Dromore property, other than properly enforcing its own zoning and not an erroneous map (which Feiners friend the developer wanted done).

Feiner and his friends are trying to focus this on hate edgemont instead of look at his record. What a waste of money on Taxter Ridge, what will he waste money on if he stays on???

feiner subverting the zoning law said...

the map the developers allegedly relied on was subject to a bureaucratic error - the law does not permit developers to take advantage of such errors so they can develop parcels in violation of the actual zoning.

so far, feiner appears to be
siding with the developers. thats an outrage and one more example why we cannot afford feiner.

Anonymous said...

Feiner has not sided with the developers. He is simply criticizing the Town Council for its secrecy and its caving in to Bernstein and McNally and keeping him out of the loop. If you read the affidavit, and if you are honest about it, you'll see that Feiner wanted the Greenburgh Nature Center to have the property.

It is the illegal and unethical behavior of Francis Sheehan and Steve Bass, and their obedient colleagues Eddie Mae Barnes and Diana Juettner, who are responsibnle for this crisis.

Anonymous said...

I am sick and tired of Feienr manuevering to spend lots of money on more useless park land. Like taxter ridge. etc. He has no understanding that people want land for active use, like playing fields etc. What does he care. He lives in a gated community whic I am certain has its own playground and pool.

Anonymous said...

From Todays NYJournal News

GREENBURGH -The planned overhaul of Greenburgh's Code of Ethics will be the subject of a public hearing at the Town Board meeting tomorrow night.

The meeting starts at 7:15 p.m. at Greenburgh Town Hall, 177 Hillside Drive.

To see the proposed revisions, go to

hal samis said...

Hey, bloggers,

Does anyone out there know of any interesting issues going on in Greenburgh. Anything controversial? Anything at all, even if you have to go back a few months, six months, a year. Anything?

Anything unresolved, anything unanswered, Town Board, Zoning, Planning, Library, Community Center, Sidewalks, DPW services, taxes, Health Center, building violations, Comptroller (Town, State)...anything.

If you do, please contact Suzanne Berger. Her website is back on line and under issues is this message: coming soon

When you speak to her, maybe you could also explain what her position should be.

easy ethics reform said...

easy ethics reform in greenburgh - vote to end the corrupt tenure of wannabe supervisor for life paul "doc" feiner

Anonymous said...

The title of this blog "Greenburgh Democracy" is so appropriate. Given the illegal meeting held by the four Council members at the behest of their Edgemont Controllers, our Democracy is in jeopardy. Secrecy is the enemy of Democracy. Since Francis Sheehan has been elected we have been subjected to violation of first amendment rights and now illegal meetings. Democracy can not flourish under a hidden adgenda.

Anonymous said...

I am still waiting to hear what the Town has done for Edgemont. . . still waiting

hal samis said...

Next time you read "tens of thousands of dollars", ask yourself or ask the blog, what did Feiner do in return?

No one who keeps that phrase in front of "voters" has made the connection to any illegal action.

When you get paid at work, it is for work you "did".

Of course what I am discussing is tonight's Public Hearing on proposed ethics laws and their emphasis on "appearance of impropriety". I admit that this idea never troubled me because I yielded, like others, to the idea that if it exists, it must be valid.

My hang-up now is not because of the Feiner connection as some would assert. Those who read me know I don't see him as the "ideal"; he is just human. But he is also "hands and feet" above what the "new" Town Council
has turned into and Ms Berger, who brings nothing to the table, is just seeking to capitalize on the concerted attack on Feiner brought to you by...her backers who had to find someone, anyone to run. Helpful too that Ms Berger might divide the Village vote.

So back to ethics. We all can cite the consitutional/bill of rights guarantee of "innocent until proven guilty". Now think about it, download it into your brain and then think: "the appearance of impropriety". It effectively cancels out one of the key tenets of democracy. If you removed the application from politics and take it away from the election, then what follows is a fair comparison.

You are walking down the street and the police arrest you because you looked like you might commit a crime. Anyone remember the tempest over "profiling"? Likewise, re ethics laws, politicians are being profiled. If you want qualified and talented people in government, you should say if you want the job, then you must agree to giving up your rights.

Never mind that the ethics laws don't actually do more than slap the victim on the wrists (after all, those guilty are writing the laws), the entire concept is one alien to America (let me correct that...the local Democratic Party led by Berger adopted a platform which opposed the Patriot Act as an incursion upon individual freedom and I, like most liberals agreed) but tonight the Democrats on the dais (all five are) want to pass ethics laws which roam the gamut of "appearances" as it can apply from elected officials down to the guard at the front door.

Democracy is lost in little pieces by little pieces. The threat is not attack by a foreign government (read dictator) through war but from ourselves. During the 1950's we had the "Red Scare". Today, we have other issues in Greenburgh, little things here, little things there, often so small that no one sees a pattern. I'm not going to single out names or incidents (a recent example is by no means the entire list) because then I will have bloggers jumping all over the pieces and missing the bigger picture. If Feiner were not the target: would any of the so-called civil righters and liberals who, rightly or wrongly, participate in government by blogging, attending meetings and even voting, ever advocate judging someone guilty just because there is an appearance. We have a court system to judge individuals charged with a crime but first an indictment is needed.
Since politics trys officials in the media and on the blog, the proposed ethics laws have created an even lowered bar, just the "appearance" of impropriety is the real crime, a bonus for the mob if anything untoward actually occurred.

Don't yield to hysterics and "tens of thousands of dollars" by the anonymous "CABAL" (I feel strongly enough to use) and let these dire implications substitute for your intellect and reason. The "tens of thousands of dollars" charge has been around since March 2004.

No one has called the Attorney General or the District Attorney with a charge that this money led to any unlawlful dealings or favoritism.

I don't care where else this "ethics" law exists; it is still wrong and we, of Greenburgh, have the right to think for ourselves. Even as juries at a trial can reject the law by failing to convict. Come to Town Hall or at least email your Town Board at and let them know that you support the Constitution.

And yes, I was one of the three letter writers who wrote to the then Ethics Board regarding these contributions. At the time, I did not question the concept because it existed and I deferred to those in the know. Today, I know more.
However, I grant that everything said about the then dysfunctional Ethics Board was accurate. Today, with a new Ethics Board, we have the opportunity for a fresh start. I qualify this because new faces do not automatically mean better. They have to prove themselves first. And, to me, preserving the "appearance" standard as written is not a good start. If the Ethics Board is truly apolitical and independent of those who appointed them, then they should take back the proposed laws as written/altered by the Town Council, rethink the comments they will hear tonight and present THEIR laws for the vote of the Town Board. Just like there is a Supervisor's Budget which becomes altered by the Town Council, the same sequence should follow here. A Town Council version followed by the amended Ethics Board version. Otherwise we have the flies being asked to guard the flypaper. The Ethics Board is in effect being charged with the responsiblity of adjudicating the laws written by those to be judged. This is not inconsistent with my comments about "appearances, someone has to write the laws, why not the Ethics Board? For good or worse, we now have an Ethics Board so there are warm bodies to do the work.

Don't let anyone fool you that these laws have to be passed tonight or they can always be changed in the future -- the future never comes. They reflect on what we believe our government can do and what it cannot. Even though it took so long to recruit an Ethics Board, now that we have one, it suggest that we should not treat it as a mere commodity. Fight the rush to close the hearing until we can see a better version of the proposed laws. And, with only the only version (that which shows corrections and changes together alongside the old) a diffiuclt to read version in the hands of the Public; it makes it very burdensome to assess the proposed laws as the Town Board wants them to exist. The version with corrections next to the original is helpful; however being able to read the law as it is intended allows one to see the document for what is says; not what it once said. Let the Public be the judge of whether it makes sense as a law, not as a historical chronology. Those that are pushing this document know full well that making it hard to read is deliberate and having an improved version only on the night of the Public Hearing is one of those little things that come to mind when I think how Democracy is taken from us, little piece by little piece.

Your turn, Mr Bernstein, Sheehan and Kaminer.

Anonymous said...

Sheehan and Kaminer have taken away one of our rights as citizens, that is freedom of the press. Kaminer, since he worked for the press together with Sheenan have killed stories that should have been published,and if they are Sheehan puts his footnotes in to change the results all the time. We should know what goes on in Greenburgh,good or bad. We pay Kaminer salary ,a job that was set up by Sheehan ,for his own reason, that is to get all the power to real soon be supervisor. Both of them should be outsted as soon as posible. What other freedoms will be taken away with Sheehan on the board?

Feiner does their bidding said...

Feiner took plenty of money from Madison Square Garden - then he became a cheerleader for their plans to have a heliport run out of their greenburgh facility. Feiner took money from the town's auditors - Bennett Kielson - we know they where asleep when Feiner was co-mingling WestHelp funds with general town funds. Feiner is a big beneficiary of attorney Mark Weingarten and his developer clients - now we see Feiner seemingly supporting the application to change the zoning for the dromore property from single family to multi-family - and who represents these developers? Mark Weingarten. The pattern is clear - Feiner takes campaign money and starts lobbying. No one just gives money to Feiner without an expectation that he will do something for them.

Anonymous said...

One of the nuttiest things to appear on this blog is the notion that it was improper to "co-mingle" revenues from Westhelp with other revenues.

The town doesn't keep a separate bank account for every item of revenue. The town has a bank account, maybe one or two others if there is a reason for it, but funds are deposited to the town's bank account.

It is the recording in the town's ledgers that identifies the source and purpose of the revenues. The money itself is fungible. There is no reason to have a separate bank account for Westhelp revenue, especially since it wasn't considered to be illegal until last winter when the State Comptroller said so in his audit report.

The accounting that the town comptroller provided traces everything and as far as I am concerned, there is no question about it. Sure the accounting should have been done differently back in 2003, but it wasn't. You can point fingers at the comptrollers or, better, at the outside auditors who should have corrected it.

Anonymous said...

No one says the comingling is "improper", except people trying to distract attention from the real issues.

What the comingling does is eliminate the ability to trace what happened to funds. Which is what people want to know. And what Feiner doesnt want people to know. Dont blame the controllers -- how many quit or left while this was going on? How many had questioned Feiner?

And as to the auditors? that contributed to Feiners campaign? Dont make me laugh.

Anonymous said...

Robert Bernstein was going to be given a deed to property near the nature center. The property was going to be used as an Edgemont village hall. If that failed, the deed remained in Bernstein's name. Did Sheehan, Bass express concerns? Were they upset that Bernstein could have kept the property for himself and eventually sold the land and used the money for his retirement? Doesn't seem kosher to me.

map error results in no damages said...

where can i see a copy of a proposed contract between bernstein and the owners of dromore to convey the property to him?

dont bother - no such contract exists. its as looney as the claim that feiner and bernstein conspired together.

the zoning map was in error. the court of appeals has repeatedly ruled that a developer cannot force a municipality to violate its zoning law due to a clerical error even if the results are harsh. here, the developers have suffered no injury - they did not overpay - in fact, the property is probably worth more than they paid.

Anonymous said...

Robert Bernstein was going to be given a deed? Says who. I am tired of Feiner and the posters picking on Edgemont, Bernstein and McNally in an effort to deflect attention away from the problems Feiner has created or tried to create --

1. Taxter Ridge
2. The town-wide "Methadone Clinics"
3. Subsidies to volunteer Firemen at the expense of the paid firemen (and please dont tell me how little it would cost, when no one knows what it would cost).
4. No comprehensive plan.
5. Selling out to developers.
6. No maintenance of parks -- e.g. Webb/Presser

Anonymous said...

Dear 3:33

Attacking Paul for supporting Volunteer Fireman is a losing battle. First of all, no paid fireman was hurt by this. Second, all of the villages are volunteer. Third, even your own beloved Edgemont has volunteer fireman to support the paid department. It was smart politically and your hero Bass even voted for it.

feiner's screwups said...

i would add that Harts Brook is a mess also. We should sell Taxter and remove that hideous wall in front of Presser Park (two more examples of Feiner's screwups)

Anonymous said...

The affidavit says that Bernstein prepared a deed for the developer to give the property to Bernstein as a gift. The deed that Bernstein prepared is attached as an exhibit, so Bernstein can't deny it.

Next are you going to say that the developer prepared a phony deed? I'd like to see Bernstein deny this under oath, just as the developer gave his statement under oath.

It will never happen. Bernstein can trumpet his BS only because he knows that he never has to prove anything.

feiner in bed with developer said...

Contrary to what Troy says in his affidavit, the draft language from Bernstein that Troy attaches to his affidavit doesn't say anything at all about giving the property to him.

The document actually says "S&R will convey to the Town by deed outright ownership of the entire premises."

The document shows all Bernstein was trying to do was preserve open space.

So why is Troy lying and why is Feiner believing him?

Because Troy is represented by Feiner's largest campaign contributor. Together they are doing whatever it takes with Feiner to get the property rezoned multifamily so that Troy can make millions selling luxury condos at Edgemont's expense.

In 16 years, Feiner has never saved an inch of open space in Edgemont.

I think it's awful that Feiner sides with developers to kill what's left of the town's open space.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 4:49

Bass assisted, with the rest of the Council (other then Feiner), to restructure Feiner's proposal to one that was fair, that would charge the cost of this proposal to the areas that use volunteer firemen.

The proposal would only apply to districts without paid firemen. That is NYS law, so no it would not have helped any volunteers in Hartsdale, Glenville or Fairveiw.

But are you saying that anything the villages support, even if unfair to unincorporated Greenburgh, is a fait accompli? You may be correct that Feiner is not willing to be fair. But even when he bullies the rest of the council to pass his proposals, all that will ultimately result in is more lawsuits. Which is to no ones' advantage.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that Sir Francis didn't think it was funny that one citizen alleged that she was physically constrained by a famous Edgmont civic leader, but then shut up when the Young Kaminer threat was again brought up at the podium?

How long will the Town Board tolerate the threatening of women and the supression of first amendment rights by a town employee?

Why aren't you indignent about that Sir Francis?

hal samis said...

Dear Edgemont,

You want open space?
Guess what, there is lots and lots of open space available, almost every day, perhaps even on your block.

Real estate is about land, anything that sits on top of the land is called an "improvement". This is not a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" statement, just a definition. For example, before demolition, One Dromore would be described as a 2+ acre lot of stated metes and bounds and IMPROVED by a single family home.

Without the home, it is being called by the congregation of the Edgemont's first Jewish Saint, OPEN SPACE -- which Edgemont says it needs. Never mind that the Nature Center is across the street or that the rear of the property abuts the enormous playfields of the Edgemont High School, it must be open space because Edgemont leaders say it is. Edgemont needs more. Well it is widely known that we are becoming an overweight Americans so it is reasonable for Edgemont to always say, "Please sir, I want some more".

Well here's a pleasant surprise, Edgemont can have all the open space it wants. The technology is already in place. All Edgemont has to do is go shopping, something they do anyway to protect all the local merchants on Central Avenue. This time, though, what they need to do is open the real estate section and right before you eyes are lots of for items for sale called houses. Be shrewed, don't tell the broker or the seller what you really intend to do. Play the game, notice the stains on the kitchen sink and say you're going to have to redo the kitchen. That might even drive the price down. But keep in mind your goal, acquire open space. Buy whichever one, two or all of them that you like. Then ask the Town Council next time they're meeting in Harrison to ask the developer for the name of the firm he used to tear down the house on his property. I'm sure he'll be happy to recommend a number of responsible firms. You see, all you need to have open space is a piece of land which may today be occupied by a house but tomorrow it could be practically anything other than 37 condo units. Want open space or a park next door, make your neighbor an offer "he can't refuse".

Maybe you heard of homes being purchased as "tear downs". Get in on the fun yourself but play by the new rules, don't rebuild. Next time, you get there first, you be the one to tear it down and then start spreading the grass seed.

Want a large piece of open space?It's really very simple. Do like the big developers do, assemble. You can play too. Buy the house next door, buy one three lots over, then buy the two in between. Be patient, home wasn't unbuilt in a day.

And, for all of you so concerned about the school operating at capacity, you can reverse the trend without any extra effort. Target larger homes that parents with lots of school age children might want to buy. Tear the house down, put up a sign and name the resulting park or open space for yourself. Everyone will be so jealous of you that they'll want to have a park named after themselves and they too will buy homes to tear down and convert into green space. It could even become of movement. If the trend catches on, soon they'll be so few homes left for families to buy, that the schools will start contracting, school taxes will fall because "school districts lose money on school children" and some of the unused classrooms might be combined into one building and the remainder being put up for sale. Now this is your chance to be the one to get ahead of the wave. You buy these unused schools and apply the same process.
Tear the school down and get some more grass seed. Soon, they'll be so many fewer people moving into Edgemont, those homes becoming a sea of grass and Edgemont will lead the county in open space acres per resident.

Word of advice, save one of those schools for another use. You never know when you're going to need a Village Hall.

Financing problems? Contact famous lawyer and bondsmen. Nobody walks at Steve & Robby's.
Remember their motto: Trust Us, There's no space we can't remove.

Look for their ad right here on this blog. However due to some pesky, pending litigation, their attorney has advised them to post under anonymous. But don't worry, you'll recognize their work product.

Troy claims be;ied by facts said...

Troy said in his affidavit he looked at the 1996 zoning map. The 1996 map says Dromore is zoned single family. Consequently, Troy knew the property was zoned single family when he bought it. Troy now claims he thought the property was zoned multi-family. How is that possible? Its not. Case closed.

time to withdraw bogus application said...

if thats the case, troy should withdraw his bogus application to have the dromore property deemed zoned for multi-family

Anonymous said...

I don't know Troy what's his name, but I doubt that he is a fool. I don't have that feeling about the bloggers who are foolish ennough to believe Bernstein.

Anonymous said...

Troy is obviously trying to hope the money given to Feiners campaign helps him

Anonymous said...

Do you have evidence that Troy has contributed to feiner, or are you just spreading the regular slime that you and your group always spread.

hal samis said...

To Susan in the West Village Wanting,

A few of us in unincorporated are still waiting for you to post your "issues" on your web page.

I'm sure that you will be able to scrape a few together any day now.

In the meanwhile do you really think that reciting your resume into the transcript of a Public Hearing is the best way you can illustrate that you are a better choice than Feiner? Either you have no understanding about what Public Hearings are about or you don't think the concept applies to you. What others do is not the issue; they aren't running for office.

Worse would be the third possibility that you get rattled easily and can't focus on the issue. All you were asked was what is your relationship to the firm that employs you. True the reason behind the question might be troublesome but your response did not demonstrate what you told your Party associates: that you are a skilled and savvy negotiator. Bottom line, there is no requirement to speak during a Public Hearing. If you get up there, you do so of your own volition. If you can't take the heat get out of the fire. There are more times ahead when Brodsky and Spano just won't be around to throw you a life preserver.

If you really want to be in local politics versus being a judge, then you must be aware that Greenburgh is worse than the Court of Last Resort. A good deal of the problem lies with your supporters on the Town Council. If you want to be the new broom, aligning yourself with damaged goods does not suggest that you have been doing your homework.

Please be sure to let me know when you have found your issue, maybe you can borrow a yet untapped world problem from Mr. Bass. I think world hunger is still available. But check with him.

Anonymous said...

Nine Villages + No Unincorporated Area = Peaceful, Efficient Township

Dobbs Ferry

Current services of Unincorporated Greenburgh would be allocated proportionately, and no one would lose jobs. Some villages might choose to collaborate with library services or santitation or tax collection or police; others may not.

Look ahead. Greenburgh spends too much time whimpering about yesterday. The original purpose of A-B / Village-Unincorporated set up a couple of centuries ago no longer exists, so I'm surprised we still choose to operate with this unincorporated silliness.

The Town of Greenburgh would still exist, but simply like a regional discussion group. The initial re-structuring would take work, but it just seems so simple and drama-free in the big picture. Everyone wins; no one loses.

Anonymous said...

7:41 says "so I'm surprised we still choose to operate with this unincorporated silliness."

It ain't our choice. It's the law. I guess that's why the Special Committee recommended that the laws be studied and changed.

The state is pushing for more consolidation of municipalities, not breaking them into smaller and smaller pieces.

There is something else. Fairview has benefited from the wealth of other areas of Greenburgh. Great. I don't think that anyone in Edgemont is starving, their town taxes are lower than village taxes. But these taxes have made a great community out of Fairview, instead of leaving it to the problems that other African-American communities have faced.

We ought to be proud. We should not be nickel-and-diming, or have a what's in in for me attitude.

Bernstein and the other Edgemont people who have the greatest sense of entitlement that I have seen, ought to be ashamed of themselves for creating this community animosity. They talk law but their interest is greed.

Anonymous said...

Everyone I know in Edgemont is fair and supportive -- the question is why ONLY Edgemont? Why doesnt the rest of the Town, in the Villages have to help? Because Feiner says so? Either the courts will disagree, or Edgemont will leave. In the end, a supervisor who can negotatioate and not litigate is the answer.

Anonymous said...

What actions will Eddie Mae Barnes take to prevent Edgemont from seceding?
Why won't Barnes apologize to the public for participating in a meeting to give Bernstein land for an Edgemont town hall?

Anonymous said...

An interesting Zoning Board Meeting. I have one question: Whose initials are on the map that was dated with the notation March 2007? Since the Town Board is the only legal authority to be able to change a Zoning Map and since they did not vote on a change in March 2007, who made these changes? Whoever initialed the map seems to have violated Greenburgh Law and should be dismissed from their positions for doing so.

Anonymous said...

If the Town Board met with an applicant and decided to give Feiner a deed from a developer what would Bernstein say?
Well, Bernstein was going to get a deed (gift) from a developer and the council won't even object

Anonymous said...

"It ain't our choice. It's the law."

Villages must be part of a town; that is law. Having unincorporated areas is not law at all. There doesn't need to be any unincorporated area whatsoever. It's a matter of choice to stick with that antiquated structure designed for serving sparsely populated areas of farms and forests and such.

Anonymous said...

"the question is why ONLY Edgemont? "

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Do you think Edgemont is the only other community in unincorporated?

Anonymous said...

In today's Scarsdale Inquirer Bob Bernstein states that "We therefore welcome the fact that the town council was willing to work with us in Edgemont to explore whether the property could be protected."

At Wednesday's meeting Bob stated categorically that "no meeting took place." Well Bob, which is it? Did you meet with the developers without any approvals from the Edgemont community or did you not? Did you commit to costing Edgemont taxpayers millions of dollars without asking them first to create your Park District?

Jim, no defense for your buddies???

Anonymous said...

Without all of the bashing, flaming and other creative commentary, can anyone please tell me what the real viability of the Edgemont incorporation is? In other words, what % of the community is for it?

Anonymous said...

If one takes a survey you can rest assured the the majority of residents are against it.The ones that may go along with Bernstein and McNally are a few of their followers,which seems to be getting smaller and smaller.Many of the residents are honest people who do not favor what took place behind the scenes together with the town council.


Bernstein doesn't speak for Edgemont. Most Edgemont residents appreciate the services in the town and don't want to break away from Greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein claims he speaks for Edgemont. How many general meetings has he sponsored for all Edgemont residents to attend? How many people does he confer with before he speaks out on a given issue? Who does he speak to?

Anonymous said...

The Scarsdale Inquire published a report stating more car breakins in the Edgemont and Hartsdale area. Where are the patrol cars. We know if they are seen on streets maybe this will stop. Do we have to start a private patrol group to stop this from happening. We want to see the police driving up and down the streets more often .The chief should ask some of the residents how often they see a patrol car in these areas. Central area is a money making road for Greenburgh,that's where the police are, but crime is on the rise in these two areas. Please see if something can be done to help this problem come to a halt.

Anonymous said...

The residents of Edgemont do not need anyone to speak in their behalf,nor do they need someone to represent them. I have lived in Edgemont for fifty one years and I have never joined any association ,that goes for my neighbors.No one has the authority to speak for anyone especially in the latest land deal. We do not need more land as was stated by 2 people in Edgemont and four members of the board.Enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:05
The Police do not patrol neighborhoods anymore. They are out doing other special details.
Like patroling the Hudson River with Dobbs Ferry, Why ? ask the PD
I haven't the foggiest Idea.

Anonymous said...

Getting back on the right page,to complain about garbage put curbside for pickup. Some homes in doing this get household garbage picked up four times a week. When ever the truck comes thru for recycles or yard waste their houshold garbage is there too. Regula ,this has got to stop. We pay the same taxes and we have to keep our garbage in the garage,,no garage it's along side of the house.And further more it does not look to good for the neighborhood.How about listening to the residents concerning the garbage problems,once in awhile.

Anonymous said...

Patrol cars have not been seen in side streets for some time. If they were patroling as they should many things that have gone unnoticed would have been corrected.Sorry the truth may hurt,but we have enough policemen to do the patrolling .You have cars, that are being sold parked at the driveways. you have commercial vehicles parked overnight day and night.You have abandoned cars ,in other words a lot of goings on including speeding. Very large trucks coming thru some of the streets. One can go on and on.We have to see patrol cars, we cannot wait for something to happen before we see what should have been happenig right along,In the morning briefing the patrolman has to be reminded to do a thorough job in his sector.yes you do have unmarked cars, but they're on central ave. and 119 giving speeding tickets or parking tickets. They are not on side streets,cruising .

shame on 50 year resident said...

dear 50 year resident - shame on you for doing absolutey for your community. last night two concerned residents of the cotswald area took the time to appear at the zoning board to preserve our quality of life from visual and light pollution while you proudly announce you have not supported neighborhood associations in your long stay here. thats nothing to admit to.

Anonymous said...

"Most Edgemont residents appreciate the services in the town and don't want to break away from Greenburgh."

I do not think that is true at all. The expense of incorporation may be a reason some may not want to un-unincorporate. The services, however, are a big reason that many DO want to be rid of Greenburgh.

Perhaps an official survey could be commissioned. Or, is there some way to ask an opinion as part of November's election? It would be nice to KNOW and not just make assumptions.

Anonymous said...

"How many general meetings has he sponsored for all Edgemont residents to attend?"

September 11, 2006
October 3, 2006
November 6, 2006
December 4, 2006 (cancelled)
January 8, 2007
February 5, 2007
March 5, 2007
April 9, 2007
April 25, 2007
May 7, 2007
June 4, 2007

September 10, 2007
September 16, 2007
October 1, 2007
November 5, 2007
December 3, 2007
January 7, 2008
February 4, 2008
March 3, 2008
April 7, 2008
April 30, 2008
May 5, 2008
June 2, 2008

Anonymous said...

People like the that fifty-one year Edgemont resident are such an embarrassment to Greenburgh as a whole.

Anonymous said...

(re-posting this from the community center pool blog category):

"Can anyone answer me why?"

I agree that this is another issue unto itself that deserves its own page, but it is a very important question.

DPW-related concerns of the everyday citizen seem to be ignored (trash, mowing, street sweeping, general simple maintenance), and they are of the highest importance to the citizen's quality of life. I don't get it either.

Sure, open the pool on Sundays - whatever - but it truly baffles me to see so many sewer grates throughout the town clogged and median strips neglected and ... okay ... I'll stop here or else I'll crash the blog system!

Suffice it to say that the opening the pool on Sundays won't win votes, but action in meeting the ** routine expectations ** (nothing fancy, just simple ongoing maintenance) of taxpayers might.

have you all gone mad said...

It’s a damn shame that this and every other post made on this blog will be forever readable on the information highway for years to come. What will people who read these rantings think 10, 20, 30 years from now? Your children & grandchildren will consider this history. Think about it folks. This is not a pretty picture and it most likely will not be erased.

Anonymous said...

I decided to sit outside this afternoon and read the Water Quality Report rather than scraping bathroom wallpaper. I had never read it in the past, and I was actually surprised to find it interesting.

I was amazed to see that our daily water usage is 183 gallons per person per day. That definitely woke me up to paying better attention to water usage. Even the scientific stuff was interesting; and I know nothing about science.

I think more people would read it if it were published in a professional layout like the summer activities booklet.

(Only one problem - an English teacher could dry out a few red pens going through all the grammar and writing errors in the report.)

Anyway, I just wanted to say that it's worth the time to take out your magnifying glass and read the water report. Thanks, Mr. Cairns, for the info.

Mother eats baby cubs said...

In defense of ’51 year resident” he/she did not say that they did nothing for the community. They said they don’t need anyone to speak on their behalf. ( I can’t imagine why) I take that as a “I speak up for my community concerns, MYSELF” The rest of you ding bats are not well represented. I assure you.

Retract your claws kitties. Eating your own has a bit of an “ew” factor.

Anonymous said...

"This is not a pretty picture and it most likely will not be erased."

Well, like much of history, much of the current reality of the Town of Greenburgh is not a pretty picture. Hopefully our kids and grandkids will learn from the history and not make the same mistakes that the Town has been choosing to make over the past couple of decades.

Anonymous said...

It seems everthing bothers the cotswall section of Edgemont. Now it's the lighting at the bank.Would you like to pull up to an ATM machine with little or no lighting. I doubt it. Did you ever stop to think that lights are the best way to stop a crime from being commited ,The only time that the lights are visable is when the trees are free of leaves and then again the homes are built on a hill,one would have to look downhill to Central ave, to see the bank. Who's kidding who.

complaints r us said...

Edgemont is just, plain, bothered. *sigh*

Anonymous said...

Banks have their own method of securing the building,not only with alarms but also with surrounding lighting.Who are we to ask for less lighting in an establishment that secures our money. We should be thankful that there are lights. The more lights the better. In this particular bank one must look downhill from the homes to see the building. There are other things to think about other than letting a company or any other business do their thing.They pay rent, keep the place clean and make a good impression on the neighborhood,and above all they pay taxes.

Anonymous said...

Working outside was a pleasure today, Saturday. The only thing that was missing to catch a glimpse of a patrol car pass through my street. What's happening 'Is there some sort of a strike,going on.Nobody to wave to.

hal samis said...

Life is so difficult and the laws are so restrictive. Consider the oppressive law that requires residents to own homes right off a busy commercial street, Central Avenue. Even more shocking is to find that those very same commercial tenants so beloved by Edgemont want to have signs and lighting.

I have the answer and it is the equivalent of killing two birds with one stone.
DISCLAIMER: No birds or animals were killed in the writing of this posting.

Suzanne Berger still hasn't found any issues to hawk and Edgemont has a problem with the lighting at the new North Fork Bank branch at Midway Shopping Center.

Just ask Suzanne to use her contacts with every Democrat in Greenburgh and Westchester to use their contacts in Albany to put pressure on Washington to put pressure on the Office of the Controller of the Currency to put pressure on Capital One to put pressure on North Fork Bank to put pressure on their area Director of Real Estate to dim the lights.

And if anyone gets mugged or shot using the ATM, and sues the Bank for not providing adequate security, then the law firm, that Ms Berger works for, might be in line to pick up some litigation assignments. Even those assignments from pedestrians injured or killed walking in the multi-modal pedestrian facility enroute to the Greenburgh Health Center. What the photo in The Scarsdale Inquirer cropped out was the nearby multi-modal facility. Who knows, they could even have been standing on it.

hal samis said...

Lest I forget, since Alfreda Williams was able to attend the photo-op for Ms. Berger, does that mean she can also attend work?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Samis,

You should post your last comments about Bernstein and the Deed that he drew up that would not have been subject to FOIL on all the relevant blogs. It is an excellent point.

hal samis said...

And another thing,

Regarding most of those people in the photograph, is that what they consider a good day's work on behalf of taxpayers?

There must have been a lot of prior calling around to coordinate such an event.

Guess Bill Greenawalt and Tom Abinante were at their day jobs that day.

Anonymous said...

Hal thank you for repeating what I said about the bank lighting. Let's see if something were to happen to anyone of the residents in the area,because of poor lighting could they sue the cotswall association.

Anonymous said...

Does Eddie Mae Barnes support Bob Bernstein's efforts to split Edgemont from Greenburgh? If the answer is trully no why did she spend time with Bernstein campaigning at the jazz concert on E Hartsdale Ave on Saturday?

Anonymous said...

If Edgemont breaks away from Greenburgh, who will fund the theodore young community center?

Anonymous said...

"If Edgemont breaks away from Greenburgh, who will fund the theodore young community center?"

It will continue to be funded by unincorporated Greengurgh but there will be substantially less money available to do so. Many services will be cut, to what extent, is anyone's guess.

It's pretty moot though as the incorporation of Edgemont appears highly unlikely these days.

Anonymous said...

"If Edgemont breaks away from Greenburgh ..."

Then the Town will provide proportionately less services, which is logical since Edgemont won't be a factor anymore. Hartsdale and Fairview would still receive the same services - perhaps even more efficiently with Edgemont gone and the Town having less work to do. The DPW services would hopefully improve drastically. Edgemont helps pays for the community center and the library even though Edgemont doesn't use either, so hours of operation and some middle management might have to be trimmed. But in the big picture, removing Edgemont would be a great long-term benefit to Unincorporated Greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

The preceeding Blog was written by Mayor Bernstein.

Anonymous said...

Dear anon 6:48,

I beg to differ. The only good that the rest of unincorporated greenbugh will get out of it is they will no longer be embarrassed by being affiliated with the citizens of Edgemont as their outrageous, greedy, self serving, elitist behavior is deplorable.

It's unfortunate as there are many in Edgemont that are wonderful humanitarians and they now have to be labeled negatively because of the behavior of one group and their self righteousness.

Hartsdale Homeowner said...

As far as reducing library hours/services if edgemont leaves, why not just get rid of the library? I used to use the Greenburgh library weekly. Since its been closed, I've been driving 5 minutes in the other direction to the White Plains library - which is superior in every sense to Greenburgh, especially the children's section. It's not as if GL is a neighborhood center anyway, maybe about 100 residents are within walking distance, Since everyone drives, why not save a lot of money and just disband it. Funny, once the library closed its doors, i suddenly discovered I can live very easily without it.

Anonymous said...

Aboit the library,before the construction started someone should have taken a count as to how many people used the facility. To my understanding there were just a fewin comparison to other libraries. Instead of listening to the library board extensive studies should have been conducted by outside the circle. People do nt want to loose their jobs so they may lie as to the true facts of the library.Maybe we will have a good shell someday for another use.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein, are you smarter than the comptroller. He says every penny is accounted for, Leave it alone.