Wednesday, July 25, 2007


A letter to the editor by Bob Bernstein in today's Journal News claims that I am siding with a developer in a lawsuit to get 37 condo's built. The letter claims that I oppose open space in Edgemont. This is not the case.
Last year I asked the Town Board to acquire that property as parkland. Recently, a sworn affidavit from the developer was released. The affidavit states that Bob Bernstein wanted the property for an Edgemont Town Hall. Mr. Bernstein worked with Council members Sheehan, Bass, Barnes and Juettner trying to find land for an Edgemont municipal building before telling Edgemont voters what he was planning to do. He is the head of a civic association but didn't consult with residents of Edgemont about his plans. The Town Council didn't consult with me. They prohibited the developer (applicant) from discussing their secret & illegal meeting with me. They didn't consult with anyone. If the affidavit is true, they were plotting to split up our town--to create a village of Edgemont, even before Edgemont voters expressed their views on the subject.
I want open space.
Bob wanted land for a municipal building.
An Edgemont municipal building would generate traffic. The municipal building would have had a negative impact on the nature center.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Berstein's letter ...

"Feiner fails to protect open space"

Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner and his campaign manager Richard Garfunkel are accusing me of criminal wrongdoing for exploring the possibility of acquiring open space in Edgemont. Their attacks are borderline libelous.

Earlier this year, a developer, represented by Feiner's largest campaign contributor, proposed to build 37 luxury condos on 2.5 acres in Edgemont formerly occupied by a single-family home. Feiner is now siding with that developer in a lawsuit against the town to get the property re-zoned so the 37 condos could be built.

Preserving that small property as open space would have protected Edgemont taxpayers, just as preserving the 200 acres of Taxter Ridge protects the Irvington School District.

But in 16 years, Feiner has never preserved open space in Edgemont. As a civic association representative, I know firsthand how Feiner's siding with developers has made preserving open space especially difficult.

We have seen all too clearly how Feiner's partnership with developers has resulted in overdevelopment along the Central Avenue corridor and throughout other parts of Greenburgh. We are also concerned about the burden such development is having on our community and its infrastructure.

We, therefore, welcomed the fact that, unlike Feiner, the Town Board was willing work with us in Edgemont to explore whether this property could be protected.

Bob Bernstein

Anonymous said...

Though I still have a vibe that something shady might have been in the works, Mr. Bernstein's letter makes more sense than Mr. Feiner's posting.

Anonymous said...

How can Bernstein say that Feiner is against open space. DId we not purchase Taxter Ridge,did we not purchase Harts park. Stop with the bs Bernstein stick to the true facts.I have been against open space for a long time because it costs the residents more tax money.
By the way did you not file suit against Feiner and the town on Taxter Ridge.Those two parcels I'm sure are considered open space.

The problem is you are totaly against new development.Admit it.
In your article you state it would have protected the Edgemont tax payers.Where has there been open space availability in Edgemont to suit you,and considered open space

Another thing are not your statement against developers ,Feiner and Garfunkel borderine libelous..

You and the board did not work with the residents in Edgemont,they never were told what you and Mcnally were going to do.

bernstein is right said...

bernstein is right. feiner has done nothing for edgemont in terms of open space.

bernstein is right #2 said...

feiner doesnt deny that the dromore developers are represented by mr weingarten, one of his largest campaign contributors and conduit for all sorts of money from weingarten's developer clients.

Anonymous said...

Where exactly is the open space in Edgemont that you would like Feiner to acquire? Come on Bob and Jim, here's your chance to speak up. List the properties that you want Feiner to acquire in Edgemont.

Anonymous said...

At the least, Feiner can stop helping developers get zoning changing to overdevelope property. If Feiner cant lead, he should just stay out of the way.

Anonymous said...

That's right Bernstein list the properties that were availabe in Edgemont. NADA.The property on Dromore rd. has been the only one. You woke up to late, if you wanted that parcel of land ,it has been availabe for years. You and McNally wanted to start a problem with the developer and his lawyers for your own reasons. It's election time and your famous group of six want nothing else to smear Feiner's name much more than you have done throughout the years. Dirty politics Bernstein.You and your famous group have given the Greenburgh a great awakening.

Now you have also added a candidate that is running for the supervisor position, Berger, now are you planning to make Edgemont the ruling power of Greenburgh. THINK AGAIN. The people are getting wise to your madness .

Michael Kolesar said...

I'll jump in for Hal Samis. No changes in zoning, etc. are possible without 3 votes. The Supervisor alone can't do that. If it has been done in the past, then there are at least two "accomplices".

Check the votes. Who voted for and who voted against?

hal samis said...

Thanks Mike!

However let me add that land acquisition costs in Edgemont are among the highest in Greenburgh.

If land were available, it would be very, very costly.

Taxter Ridge, which I opposed then and still oppose, as I recall was sold for something like 200 acres for $12 million. That comes to $60,000 an acre. Allow for a rising market and say 5x that would be $300,000 an acre. Even allowing an unrealistic 10x that would be $600,000 an acre.

Now much of that land was rendered undevelopable under the Town's then newly passed steep slopes and wetlands laws. At the time I argued that the Town/County/State was overpaying based on that. However if Mr. Bernstein is only seeking open space, then what does it matter if there are steep slopes and wetlands?

In any case, if the Town had paid less, it would make the following even more valid because the Taxter Ridge cost per acre would be lower.

Dromore Road, 2.4 acres at the developer's purchase price of $1,400,000 is $583,000 per acre.
However, if the developer is correct and wins his zoning case, then the property which would support 37 units (more units if single bedroom units) would likely be worth the appraisal of $10 million.

This translates to $4,167,000 per acre.

How many acres at this cost would Mr. Bernstein have the Town purchase? If Edgemont were located in another part of Town, perhaps it would be economically feasible to even purchase enough to support the dream of his own Duchy.

If Edgemont had 200 acres for sale at $4,167,000 per acre, then post Bernstein lawsuit, the Town could make Bob happy by writing a check for $833,400,000 split either Townwide or Unincorporated. Based upon an average assessment of $15,000, no one could afford it and no one would be able to sell their homes either. Of course this is an absurd example, but Mr. Bernstein, who regularly forgets that there is a Town Council, which supports the Supervisor in all his alleged transgressions, is equally absurd in his fervor to marginalize Mr. Feiner.

But no price is too dear if the underlying purpose is to find a place for the Edgemont Village Hall.

bernstein right; feiner wrong said...

Why does Feiner keep saying Bernstein wanted the Dromore property for an Edgemont village hall?

Because a developer, represented by Feiner's largest campaign contributor, says so?

The draft agreement that Bernstein prepared has the developer giving the property to the town "for active and passive recreational purposes only." That doesn't sound like he's building a village hall, does it Feiner?

And what is this business about Feiner not siding with the developer against the town in a the developer's lawsuit to get the property re-zoned to build those 37 luxury condos?

That's exactly what he's done. Feiner announced, on the town's website, that the developer was right -- that the proposed moratorium Edgemont wanted was aimed at stopping the developer's plans to build those 37 condos.

Never mind that the moratorium was proposed early last fall long before anybody ever heard about the Dromore property. Never mind that Feiner said at the time that he was inclined to support it. And never mind that the property was never in the Central Avenue zone and wouldn't have been covered by the proposed moratorium.

So how could Feiner, an elected public official, be so stupid and so reckless as to use taxpayer resources to side publicly with the developer in a lawsuit against the town on an important allegation like that, when he has to know the allegation could not possibly be true?

And why is Feiner so opposed to the idea of giving Edgemont voters a chance to weigh in on whether they might want to acquire the open space themselves?

Does anyone really think that Greenburgh would have ever come up with the money to purchase that property?

Don't forget, the Dromore developer told Feiner the money had to be paid in less than 12 months by December 31, 2007!

By contrast, the town spent more than four years trying to come up with the state and county money for Taxter Ridge.

The long and short of the matter is that Feiner is lying and that every word in Bernstein's letter is true, and Feiner knows it.

Anonymous said...

The Edgemont voters cannot vote on something that was kept a secret by Bernstein ,McNally and the four council members. The residents were never advised as to what was taken place at the secret meeting. Is this open government. Did they think that they would wait until election time to throw a referendum at the voters. This is not the way things are done in the U.S.A.One must know well in advance if they have to vote on a referendum, You were trying to pull the wool over every ones eyes. This time you got caught.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1:02 is smoking dope of the paranoid Feiner variety.

The only way there could ever have been a vote by Edgemont residents on whether to spend the money themselves to buy the Dromore property is if the Town Board were to authorize it.

And before any such authorization could ever be given, the law requires that there be notice and a hearing where Edgemont residents and the rest of the town could voice their opinion on whether Edgemont residents should or should not have the right to vote on whether to acquire the property themselves.

There would never have been anything secretive about this process at all.

we can't afford feiner anymore said...

That comment by anon at 12:32 about Feiner saying something stupid in support of a developer's lawsuit against the town reminded me that this isn't the first time that Feiner's done something this dumb.

That whole Fortress Bible litigation against the town is based on Feiner having publicly promised the church they'd get approval to build if only they'd donate a fire truck to the fire district there.

Now the church, which never got get the approvals it needed, is suing the town for millions of dollars over what Feiner had said. It seems that if approvals could be given in exchange for a firetruck, as Feiner had said, then the town's reasons for denying the approval must be bogus, or so the church claims.

I sure hope the town wins this suit, but with Feiner apparently unable to control his mouth, here, and now with the Dromore situation, can we as taxpayers really afford to have Feiner around anymore?

So thanks anon at 12:32. Thanks for pointing this out. Hopefully, people who read this blog will sit up and take notice that we've got a real problem on our hands here, and it's Feiner.

hal samis said...

You know I am really disgusted by the depravity represented by the accusations made by people who know better but are so desperate to unseat Feiner that the ends justifies the means.

The number of outright lies and passing opinions as fact would be truly embarrassing if they didn't have the refuge of posting as anonymous.

But they do so in the belief that if they repeat the lie, even with variations, enough that some one will believe it.

If 1:02 is smoking dope, then Feiner should be saying like the Lincoln/Grant quote, the he should send an ounce of it to all his Department heads. However, that would be illegal and only court further criticism as well as a visit by the Police Chief.

In no particular order.

1:25 -- why would the Town and all its residents care or have a vote in any private transaction between private citizens and a private developer? As written: "The only way there could ever have been a vote by Edgemont residents on whether to spend themselves to buy the Dromore property is if the Town Board were to authorize it".

Perhaps the writer has inhaled some down stream smoke from 1:02?

Doesn't make very much sense but it wasn't meant to, just to imply that there is something rotten going on.

Earlier we read that Mr. Weingarten is the largest campaign contributor to Feiner and a CONDUIT for developer campaign contributions. How much has the largest contributor contributed?
What does conduit mean? Was the Town merely a conduit for WESTHELP?
Does conduit mean fundraiser? Does conduti mean developers made out checks to Weingartern who then made his own check out to Feiner. Was there any attempt to conceal the givers' identities? If so, how do we know they were developers? Will Ms Berger have anyone in charge of fundraising or is she running her campaign entirely by herself. Would it be improper to call any fundraisers on her behalf, conduits? There are many more comments on this subject which is painted as "nefarious" but I think readers get the idea.

What has Feiner done to prevent Edgemont residents "a chance to weigh in on whether they might want to acquire the open space themselves"? The paragraph from 12:39 starts "And why is Feiner so opposed to the idea of giving Edgemont voters a chance...". The reason it is written this way is that the writer wants to trick readers into believing that what follows is a fact when they are using only their own argument as the proof.

"And what is this business about Feiner not siding with the developer against the town..."
Another sentence constructed to make you believe that Feiner has sided with the developer against the town. In fact the blogger writes "That's exactly what he's (Feiner) has done" because Feiner has perhaps commented that the moratorium was phony from the start and would have succeeded had no one spoken out against it. Supervisor's can neither speak the truth or even hold an opinion.

But the blogger has proof. Edgemont wanted the moratorium in fall of 2006 "long before anybody ever heard about the property". The blogger knows this is an outrageous lie. It just hadn't come up on the blog. The developer did over a year of due diligence regarding the zoning, asking everyone at Town Hall, sending architects and appraisers all in search of the answer. Does anyone really believe that no one in the Town Planning Department speaks to Ms McNally, 'hey Michelle guess what's happening in your neighborhood...'.

"Don't forget the developer told Feiner the money had to be paid within 12 months.." And the blogger notes that the town took four years to line up the County and the State for the Taxter Ridge purchase. Frankly I don't know whether that is true but even so, that purchase was $12 million, the Town's share was 1/3 and the seller was realizing an enormous profit having owned the land at a much lower cost basis allowing the benefit of purchasing it at least 10 years earlier. However, Dromore was purchased only last year and the developer was willing to sell it AT HIS COST so somehow the impression has been orchestrated that something oppressive and amiss is underway because the developer wants to get his money back in a year.

I would have to take another look at the draft created by Bernstein but I think I remember that if the Town cannot comply with the terms that Bernstein was binding the Town to, that Bernstein would still have a call upon the property even if the Town was not the final owner.

And if "...Greenburgh would have ever come up with the money to purchase the property" according to the blogger that "Does anyone really think that...(just above)"
If this is to be believed, then I'm going to put Mr. Bernstein in the class of "anyone" and wonder aloud why he drafted such an agreement?

But there's more. Mr. Bernstein and other lawyers fully understand what is the weight of a sworn affidavit and what the penalties would be were it proven to be full of lies. In light of the reality that no one mentioned in the affidavit has stepped forward to produce their own sworn affidavit (and all of the parties, Bass, Barnes, Juettner, Sheehan, McNally, Bernstein who attended these meeting(s) will be bound to do so in time) are using the the time between their need and the election in between so attack the affidavit as though it was not true. They can do so with impunity because they have not been required to do similarly. Anyone can lie at this stage -- only the developer can be held accountable. So bloggers have no qualms about sayinging he lies.

"Why does Feiner keep saying that Bernstein wanted the Dromore property for an Edgemont Village Hall?

Because a developer, represented by
Feiner's largest campaign contributor say so?"

Ask and answered.
But maybe the answer is that Bernstein discussed it but now says (now meaning that it is public) it was all a joke. Even if it were just a bad joke, that is a lot better answer than the blogger who knows this answer but chooses instead to use his own because it sounds better.

More to follow.

samis on feiner and weingarten said...

Here is an exerpt from a letter mr samis wrote to the town's ethics board seeking an investigation of his dealings with mark weingarten in october 2004:

The fundraiser at Gregory’s Restaurant was hosted by Mark Weingarten not by the owner, William LoSapio. Mr. Weingarten was applicant D’Alessio’s attorney at the time of the event. Mr. Feiner’s campaign treasury paid for the event. Mr. D’Alessio (a Republican) was not out driving around and dropped in by chance but had been invited – as were all of the other attendees and contributors.

The line between Mr. Feiner and those that run his fundraising is not one akin to a "Chinese Wall" and most certainly the right hand and the left hand were conversant.

What the history per Mr. Feiner of meetings between Mr. D’Alessio and the community is not relevant. Only the application and the acceptance of the contribution should be before you. Whether Mr. D’Alessio did or did not receive consideration for his contribution is also not relevant. Only the application and the acceptance of the contribution is.

samis working for developer said...

In the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't Samis tell everyone he's working for the Dromore developer, hoping they'll give him a paying job?

There he was, at the zoning board hearing last week, passing love notes to the Troys and their lawyer, as if Samis, a self-proclaimed know-it-all, would have anything constructive to say. As if he knew anything at all about zoning or the law.

Samis' allegations are all BS and a sham, the same as Feiner's, and the developer's.

In fact, the developer has already filed a supplemental affidavit admitting his prior affidavit was based not on fact or personal knowledge, but on newspapers articles and anonymous blog entries. So much for the truth.

Samis, like Feiner and Garfunkel beforehimi, is also lying about the so-called draft agreement. According to Samis, it was intended to "bind" the town to terms.

What a crock that is. Anyone with a high school education can read the draft and see it doesn't bind to town to do anything. The town wasn't even intended to be a party to it.

Instead, the town was to be the beneficiary of a gift. That is, until it was learned that what the Troys were up to was illegal.

And what's this about Bernstein having a "call" on the property? Another total fabrication on Samis's part and he knows it.

feiner & weingarten - joined at the hip? said...

From another letter to the town's ethics board about mr feiner, mr weingarten and the fundraiser. Was Weingarten a conduit for Mr. Feiner - you decide:

Mr. Feiner told The Scarsdale Inquirer that the fundraiser was organized by Mark P. Weingarten, a member of the White Plains law firm of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Tartaglia Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, and that it was Mr. Weingarten, who issued the invitations on behalf of Mr. Feiner’s campaign committee. See The Scarsdale Inquirer, "Residents Question Feiner on Campaign Contributions," September 17, 2004. Mr. Feiner also omits to mention in his letter that Mr. Weingarten was then representing Mr. D’Alessio and that, in addition to Mr. D’Alessio’s $1,000, his law firm contributed another $500.

feiner and weingarten - the money trail said...

Here is more on Feiner, Weingarten and campaign contributions from his clients:

The March 29, 2004 fundraiser raised a total of about $32,000 for "Friends of Paul Feiner." The entire fund contains approximately $132,000. Therefore, this was a relatively huge fundraiser for Mr. Feiner and it undoubtedly gave Mr. Weingarten and his firm’s clients unusual access and opportunity to influence Mr. Feiner. Indeed, at the time the fundraiser was held, Mr. Weingarten and his firm were representing a number of other clients with applications pending before the town. One such client was Sunrise Development Corp., which was seeking Town Board approval at that time to purchase the old Town Hall property for $2.7 million – a price many considered to be substantially below market. Significantly, Mr. Feiner was at that time Sunrise’s most vocal supporter on the Town Board and a vote to enter into exclusive negotiations with Sunrise – a vote that Mr. Feiner was insisting had to take place – was scheduled for April 14, 2004 – a little more than two weeks after the March 29 fundraiser.

ethics law need in greenburgh said...

The proposed ethics law goes a long way toward stopping the type of "pay for play" engaged in by mr feiner. All eyes are watching to see if feiner once again seeks to derail this historic legislation at friday's special meeting.

the truth about feiner and samis said...

Is Samis stupid or does he just think the rest of us are?

The developer says he wanted to give the entire property to the town as a gift, provided he got paid back his purchase price of $1.4 million and his out of pocket expenses.

Bernstein then drafts an agreement to make that promise legally binding -- to make sure that if the town, or Edgemont or even Bernstein himself comes up with the money, that the developer would do as promised and give the land to the town.

That's right, if Bernstein comes up with the money, all he gets is the right to make the developer give the land to the town as open space.

The developer then says no deal, no binding agreements with anyone, and it turns out what the developer wants to do is illegal anyway.

And then, on top of everything else, it also turns out the property was always zoned single family, which the developer apparently knew all along.

So here we have Samis trying desperately to help Feiner get the property re-zoned so those 37 luxury condos can get built after all.

That's exactly what will happen if Feiner and his "team" get elected, and Samis knows it, which is why he's trying so hard.

Weingarten will draft the zoning change and they'll ram it through -- Edgemont be damned.

That's what Feiner and Samis are up to.

Anonymous said...

I can't add much to answer this specious piece by Mr. Robert "Bob" Bernstein, from Edgemont that Mr. Sammis has presented. Bernstein, and his anonymous CABALISTS, are pipe-dreaming at best. If anything I quoted Mr. Richard Troy in his now famous affidavit. If Mr. Troy is libeling Bernstein, he has opportunity to seek redress in court. In fact, I would like to see him waste some of his money suing Troy. Troy, his family, colleagues and his lawyers did not contruct his testimony out of thin air or smoke and mirrors. Perjury is a dangerous and risky business and most sane people do not indulge in its practice. From my reading of the SWORN statement, Bernstein and McNally met illegally with four Board members with the intent of eventually using a piece of the land that abuts the Greenburgh nature Center for their own purposes. They specifically excluded the Supervisor, the Town's chief financial officer. For what puropose? According to Troy, it was to keep their meetings clandestine. I am sure that he was unaware that according to almost universal meetings, their get-together eas unethical and illegal. Maybe that is why Bernstein did not want their lawyer there! Do tell!

It was stated not by Supervisor Feiner, or myself, that it was for a potential Edgemont Village Hall. This piece of information was articulated in the SWORN affidavit as a potentiality by Bernstein-McNally. Go argue with Troy!

Why would Troy want to help Supervisor Feiner? It was the Supervisor that opposed the deal and said speak to the GNC! It was Feiner that reiterated that the Commissioners did not speak for the Town on that issue. How can that be thought as to siding with a developer?

All of a sudden, one of Feiner's contributors, who has given to any and all, represents a client for the purposes of facilitating a developement, and therefore Feiner is guilty by association.

It is mostly true thata majority of heroin user's smoked dope before they graduated to the harder stuff, but they also drank milk. According to Bernstein, there must be a connection between drinking milk and shooting up!

Let Bernstein and McNally, and their acolytes, squeal all they want. He has been at the heart of a vast majority of the controversy that has plagued Greenburgh for years. In other words, he has elevated the Krauss, O'Shea, Preiser bleatings to a new art form.

He is the individual who has brought litigation and threatens more. He is the individual who hurls charges and he is at the root of the dissention in Greenburgh.

Supervisor Feiner does his job, and does it well. If the voters are tired of him and want him replaced by a neophyte that is owned by the lawyers in her firm, her political cronies and the party bosses, so be it.

Most keen observers of this Town Hall mess know who to blame. It started with the appointment of Bass to the Board and the tortuous wearing down of Juettner and Weinberg. They finally used the library as a wedge, and when those two caved in on the issue, they dumped Weinberg, and put up their true inside weapon, Sheehan.

Many, many people, in these blogs, have described and articulated the negative influence that Sheehan has demonstrated on the Board. He has spearheaded the fracturing of the Board, the Town and the attacks against the Supervisor.

That is where it is, plain and simple. As for myself, I welcome attacks by Bernstein, and I wear it as a "badge of courage." He with his divisive accusations has painted himself into a well-deserved corner. All of his shrieking and squealing cannot change his problems.

As the wheels of justice grind slowly. but finely, the truth will come out.

As for the Supervisor, these laughable lies about his being in the pocket of developers ring as hollow as the echo in Bernstein's cranium.

All of a sudden in politics. contributions are akin to mass murder, child abuse, and weapons of mass destruction. Who are these hidden no-nothings that hide behind the veil of anonymity? Come out of the darkness and let the light shine in.

They cannot, because probably 99% of them are quite possibly the troika of Bernstein-Bass-Sheehan. A few of us, Kolesar, Lasser, Sammis, and myself, along with the Supervisor, have the courage of our convictions and are willing to put our names under our remarks.

I personally have nothing to do with the Town government. I defend and fight for whom and what I believe is right. I happen to know of Paul Feiner, and his career, for 35+ years. I am quite satisfied with his honesty, committment to his job, and to his incredible work ethic. People may disagree with some of his ideas, but in words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's acceptance speech at the 1936 Democratic National Convention,

"Governments can err - Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-hearted and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occaisonal faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."

To me, a long-time student of history and a long-time registered and working Democrat (41 years), that is what Paul Feiner stands for.

Richard J. Garfunkel

hal samis said...

It is not news that Big Bother is Watching.

What is the issue is what was actually established by these new postings which support nothing more than what is already known: that Feiner has raised a lot of money from real estate developers and those in allied service industries.

Nothing new. I have never disputed that Weingarten was raising funds for Feiner. What my objection was, and is, is to calling Weingarten a conduit which leaves the impression that something sneaky and hidden was going on. It is like saying that the lady that comes to the door solicity funds for The American Cancer Society is a conduit, not a fundraiser.

Samis is in real estate finance. Something that is no secret either.
Have I done work for the developer?
No. Would I refuse any assignments in the future? No. Does this represent a conflict? No.
Am I not still a resident.
Does Mr. Bernstein now want to see my client list?
Do I have views about Edgemont dating back to before the Library referendum? Perhaps someone should post those as well.

But curiously enough, the "anonymous" poster doesn't post my own objections to Sunrise, in fact my leadership in persuading the Library Board (yes before they started screwing up I favored expansion in theory, not in their practice) not to give their assent by saying that they had no need for the old town hall plot. I did so because I did not think that the Library Board knew enough about their project needs to walk away from the parcel. But I also knew that the Sunrise use was a reasonable use, not objectionable to the neighbors, one likely not to bring much traffic and certainly more favorable that another car dealership. So Feiner in arguing for Sunrise was on the right side and if the Library Trustee dummies were too eager to say that they didn't need the extra land, that is not Feiner's fault. In fact the poster could also have posted the statements of the Library Architect (same one then and now) agreeing that both uses could coexist and that there would be enough land for the then proposed 160 parking spaces.

In fact, nothing in the subsequent four postings to mine negates anything I have said. However they did call what I wrote bullshit.

This is easy enough to prove or disprove. I acknowledge that I have few computer skills otherwise I would post the draft agreement on the blog. But my opponents do possess them as you have read their postings. Why not post the draft agreement on the blog just like they do with the excerpts from letters and newspaper articles? Let readers decide.

Just let me point out in advance that the draft agreement was written by Mr. Bernstein and under the space for the developers signature is the space for Mr. Bernstein's signature.

A simple matter to resolve. Post it or shut up.

Anonymous said...

You're only pissed with Bernstein because if Edgemont becomes a village you'll miss out on your continuing opportunites for self-enrichment.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein if you're innocent print ut the document that Samis is refering to. I think we all want to see it , and I think a copy should be sent to the Journal news so all the residents in Greenburgh and Westchester will know the truth.

hal samis said...

Ok now I'm home at can look at the draft agreement as prepared BY Bob Bernstein.

I still don't work the computer any better so I'm going to type selected lines from the agreement.
You don't trust my editing, post the entire document or go to Town Hall and read it.

"This gift agreement dated as of February___2007 is between S&R Development Estates...having it principal place of business at... and Robert B. Bernstein, an individual residing at...and is in contemplation of a gift agreement to be entered into with the Town of Greenburgh.

Whereas, S&R owns certain vacant property...
Whereas, the Property is situated in the Town's Central Avenue Zoning District and is zoned for, among other things, multifamily development;
Whereas S&R is planning to build a 37 unit two-bedroom condominium...
Whereas S&R obtained an independent appraisal of the Property as of August 14, 2006 valuing the land only portion of the development as $9,375,000;
Whereas certain residents and public officials have suggested that the public would be benefited if the Property were left undeveloped and S&R agrees:

1) In lieu of proceeding...S&R shall make a gift to the Town of the land value over and above S&R's cash investment in the Property (the "Cash Investment")
2) For purposes of the gift the Cash Investment shall be equal to
S&R's purchase price for the property of $1,400,000 plus actual documented out-of-pocket expenses...The actual value of the of the gift would then be equal to the appraised value of the land portion...less the Cash Investment.
3) Bernstein or his designee (which may include the Town) shall have the right to make to S&R the Cash Investment payment, but such Cash Investment payment must be made no later than December 15, 2007.
4) In contemplation that such payment will be made, upon entering into a gift agreement with the Town, S&R shall convey to the Town a conservation easement dedicating 100% of the Property for either active or passive recreastion use by the Town, subject to certain development rights on 20% of the Property (the "Retained Development Rights"). Subject to approval by the Town's Planning Board and applicable law, the location of the Retained Development Rights shall me marked on the proposed site plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Upon receipt of the Cash Investment payment, S&R will convey to the Town by deed outright ownership of the entire premises.
5) Should the Cash Investment payment not be made as of the December 15, 2007 deadline, S&R shall have the right thereupon to exercise its Retained Development Rights
6) It is expressly understood and agreed that Bernstein may assign any rights he has hereunder to the Town, that the Town may enter into its own gift agreement with S&R along the lines set forth herein and if the Town does not enter into its own such gift agreement as contemplated herein, that such agreement will automatically supersede this agreement and any other prior understandings or agreements that may exist.
7) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York
8) All disputes...resolved by Arbitration...
9) This agreement shall be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third parties unless required by law to do so.
10) The foregoing sets forth the complete agreement between parties...

By S&R Development Estates, LLC
and Robert B. Bernstein"

Since I have my suspicions and since Mr. Bernstein drafted the agreement, and not the Town Attorney, let me point out my concerns.

I believe that words when used are chosen with care by a practicing Attorney.

Starting with #9, the subscribing parties to this agreement are the Developer and Mr. Bernstein. The Developer is just looking to secure his receipt of the Cash Value and he doesn't care who owns the property thereafter. His tax benefits will follow suit if the gift ends up with an eligible acquirer -- which could be an Edgemont non-profit corporation to be formed. Mr. Bernstein, under the secrecy arrangement has no obligation to inform the Town of this deal and thus the Town may never be aware of any possibility to acquire the property.

Then under #3, "Bernstein or his designee (which may include the Town)" the parens are not mine. So what it says is that Bernstein or anyone he chooses may pay the seller. If the seller, S&R, receives its money, there will be no surviving development rights which were just "good faith" instruments to insure completion of the sale. All of the other conditions of satisfaction re Planning Board etc will not survive the transaction.

In #6, it looks like Bernstein is doing this in contemplation of assigning the rights to the Town but there is that troublesome "may assign" versus "will" and any of the Town rights could trump the rights of Bernstein only IF Bernstein does not follow #9 and instead tells the Town about the agreement. A private agreement among private parties is not subject to FOIL requests. The language of #6 seems merely to be decorative if anyone were to become aware of a deal with Bernstein or his assigns and exists solely to be the touchstone to protect against any public outcry. i.e., "it was always intended for the Town, see it says so right here".

If Edgemont were to incorporate as a Village, this parcel's future land use would be subject to whatever Zoning laws Edgemont would enact. If the non-profit acquisition entity qualified, say being an entity to operate a public park, the seller would qualify for the tax benefit in making the gift. At some point in the future, the qualifying acquisition entity could then convey the property to the Village of Edgemont.

As all of you know I am not an Attorney and the comments are just how I read the agreement. Others will read it differently. I am not even saying that anything devious would occur, just that I see language that would allow a different conclusion than we have been told was the sole intent.

It is troubling that Mr. Bernstein would be acting as a legal representative for the Town, that meetings be kept secret and that on top of these considerations, somehow a group of people are seeking to turn this document into a weapon against Supervisor Feiner.
You be the Judge.

hal samis said...

Dear 6:14,

Please identify yourself so I can personally enrich you. You may be reading from a playbook but residents from both sides of the aisle who know me remember that my ties and livelihood being real estate based do not deny my local bonafides.

So if you think that I take positions based upon opportunism then don't bother reading further.

roads to enrichment in real estate finance

Why I blocked the purchase (for a Town Hall in 2000) of the building across the street from the current Town Hall;
Why I opposed the renting of Frank's nursery for the Library;
Why I have made numerous trips to the podium at Zoning Board meetings to show my support for the CGCA stand on outdoor sign sizes;
Why I have opposed the Taxter Ridge purchase;
Why I argued against the expansion of 50 Tarrytown Road;
Why I pointed out that the Midway Shopping Center site plans made the landscaping look like a fertile, verdent oasis;
Why I fought against Weingarten on the Greenburgh Health Center expansion;
Why I supported the Colony residents in their opposition to the problems created by the Westchester Square (Marshall's) shopping center;
Why I supported the CGCA in their issues with the furniture store on Central Avenue;
Why I supported the CGCA in their grievances against the parking of trucks behind the Knollwood Shopping Center;
Why I opposed Mark Weingarten in his defense of the extra floor at 297 Knollwood;
Why I supported Edgemont in their fight against the Dilmaghani tent sale;
Why, even while arguing against the moratorium, I also volunteered that any building can be torn down and rebuilt with a different use;
Why at different times I have supported Sheehan and Greenawalt
Why I have spent many of my 7+ years on the opposite side of Feiner..

But hitting below the belt is not a foreign concept to those who serve the grassroots.

Anonymous said...

The "you" I referred to was not the noted real estate maven Hal Samis, who as a private citizen is entitled to as much enrichment as he is capable of earning - I meant the jackals sitting at the dias during the Town of Greenburgh's Board meetings....

Anonymous said...

From Richard J. Garfunkel

How to chill speech -Journal News Editorial

(Original publication: July 24, 2007)
Gotta love the Town of Greenburgh government. The officials are always up to something, usually each others' throats. For a taste, visit the town's Web site. Among headlines viewed yesterday: "EXTRAORDINARY SECRECY, FAVORITISM, VIOLATIONS OF OPEN MEETING LAW BY TOWN COUNCIL." Posted by some gadfly? Hardly. That one's from the town supervisor, Paul Feiner. And just above the notice of an upcoming event for "Greenburgh singles," there is this: "Supervisor uses Town email for political attack," which was posted by a "disappointed" Town Council - Eddie Mae Barnes, Steve Bass, Diana Juettner and Francis Sheehan. Such back and forth is commonplace between Feiner and the council. We suppose it would all be very amusing, if they were still in junior high.
Against this backdrop Greenburgh is considering a host of new ethics code changes; a public hearing on the proposals is scheduled for tonight. While more needs to be learned about exactly whose ox is being gored by specific measures, we join the chorus voicing concern about two provisions, one a proposal to ban town officials from accepting any campaign money from those seeking permits from the town, their lawyers, consultants and affiliates; and the other a rather Orwellian-sounding proposal targeting the "Abuse of Information."
In the first case, the campaign-finance provisions simply go too far; they would bind politicians and contributors in a manner neither contemplated nor likely permitted by the First Amendment. Having candidates disclose every nickel in contributions is necessary and altogether proper, but the wide ban on giving effectively shuts up both recipients and contributors, denying some the right to be heard in local governance. Greenburgh can't do that. Moreover, the contributions ban would not apply to political challengers; only actual officeholders - such as Feiner - would have to play by that rule. A restriction of such limited application should set off Greenburgh residents' fairness meter.
The "Abuse of Information" provision sets off our "1984" meter. It would call for sanctions including removal for officials who release any information "to which the public may be denied access" under the state's Freedom of Information Law, unless release has been authorized by the Town Board. To whom do you think that's directed? Feiner - he very often plays the roll of whistle-blower in Greenburgh, or odd man out - opined that the "Abuse of Information" provision could have a "chilling effect" on free speech. We agree. We also can imagine Valerie Plame-type inquiries into who leaked what to whom. There would be depositions. Perhaps lie-detector tests. The Greenburgh Web site would need to be expanded just to handle all the recriminations.
It would be worse than junior high. Greenburgh should think twice and again for enacting these changes.
A Journal News editorial
The Journal News offered the above editorial on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

In today’s Journal News, on the editorial page, we were able to observe two distinctive points of view. Mr. Steve Bass, an appointed Town Board Member, who ran unopposed in the last election cycle, has articualted his support of a draconian and possibly unconstitutional ethics code proposed by his and the Town Board’s hand picked group. During the regular Wednesday Greenburgh Town Board meeting, held on the 18th of July, the public excoriated both the “code” and its supporters, specifically Town Board members, Bass and Sheehan. Juettner and Barnes remained strangely silent.

During a subsequent hearing, the new, so-called “Ethic’s Board” withdrew their “anti whistle-blower” provision. With regards to that action by Supervisor Feiner, in today’s paper, was able to frame the background that brought about his actions. He stated, “Meeting in secret, meeting without the Supervisor, negotiating with two residents without letting the other affected residents know, planning a referendum in secret – all these are inappropriate to say the least, a violation of public trust for sure and violations of law. My e-mail alerted the town, and just in time.”

There is no doubt that Mr. Bass defends this clandestine conduct. He supported the inclusion of the “anti-freedom of speech, and anti-whistle-blower” provision until his own “select” Ethic’s Board withdrew it under public pressure. Thank the heavens for “Freedom of the Press!” Now he wants an “ethics law” that would limit incumbents from receiving contributions, but not limit challengers, like their candidate Suzanne Berger. It was pointed out in the Journal News, just today, that a large percentage of her contributions came from out of Greenburgh, some from out of state, and much from her law firm that benefited from a “no-bid” sweet heart contract pushed by Berger, in her role as the Greenburgh Democratic Chairperson, and by Francis Sheehan, a member of the Greenburgh Town Board. Supervisor Feiner, alone, voted against that “deal.”

It seems to me, because of this obvious conflict of interest, Ms. Berger should resign from being Chairperson of the Greenburgh Democrats, and should return those tainted contributions from her so-called friends. She claimed at the Town Board meeting, last Wednesday, that these were friends for twenty years. But her law firm only merged with Bryan Cave in 2002. Were most of the contributions only from her associates from the old law firm? She should answer that question.

Mr. Bass claims in today’s op-ed that the new “ethics law” poses absolutely no threat to the First Amendment. Where did Mr. Bass get his law degree? Since when is Steve Bass an expert on the Constitution? It seems to me that he should worry about his own legal status, in lieu of his clandestine and illegal meeting with the Board, without the Supervisor, and with two town residents. He should worry about the consequences of his secret effort to promote and push through a “phony” referendum on a moratorium on housing for Edgemont. We all know the details of that moratorium, and we all know that it was not over housing in the least, or the public schools in Edgemont. It was a backdoor, clandestine effort to fool the voters of Edgemont, get them all riled up over housing and obfuscate the true reality of the scheme. The scheme, articulated in the Troy Affidavit, that the Supervisor was given, and he exposed to the public, was to provide public funds to purchase land for a Edgemont Village Hall, and “grease” the way for secession. This was the plan of Bernstein and McNally. Ironically Juettner and Barnes, who attended the meeting or meetings, were oblivious to the true reality of their efforts.

So now they all support the “non-break-up” of Greenburgh. Where were they when this clever web of intrigue was first proposed? People who want Edgemont to secede from the Town of Greenburgh designed this scheme. What else is new?

Richard J. Garfunkel

Below is Supervisor Feiner’s full statement from today's Journal News:

Acrimony mars Town Board
(Original Publication: July 27, 2007)

I agree with much of the Tuesday editorial "How to chill speech," about the ethics law proposed by the town council. Your editorial also commented on an e-mail I distributed titled, "Extraordinary Secrecy, Favoritism, Violations of Open Meetings Law by the Town Council." It happens that my disclosure of the events described in that e-mail was among the most important disclosures that I have made, and it has received the most significant public outpouring.
Readers of your paper should recognize that the action that the town council members took was, if true, highly inappropriate and disrespectful of the public trust, and a violation of the requirement that meetings are required to be open to the public. A sworn affidavit by Richard Troy, a principal of S&R Development Estates, claims that members of the town council secretly met with a developer several times and prohibited the developer from discussing the meeting with me or anyone else.
Present and participating at these meetings were Bob Bernstein and Michelle McNally, both of the Edgemond Community Council, an umbrella group for all eight civic associations in Edgemont. The purpose of these meetings was to provide a method for transferring the developer's property in Edgemont to Edgemont so as to provide land for a village hall if, as planned by Mr. Bernstein, Edgemont became a separate village. This matter of the utmost public concern was done secretly.
(The subject of the online exchange between Feiner and Town Board members was addressed in a July 15 article, "Developer claims Greenburgh officials conspired to derail housing plan; the matter was also addressed in a Wednesday letter by Bob Bernstein, "Feiner fails to protect open space." The accounts of what transpired at the meeting have varied. - Editor.)
Meeting in secret, meeting without notifying the supervisor, negotiating with two residents without letting the other affected residents know, planning a referendum in secret - all these are inappropriate to say the least, a violation of public trust for sure and violations of law. My e-mail alerted the town, and just in time.
One of the serious implications of the plan was that if Bernstein's long-proclaimed vision of making Edgemont into a separate village - a vision he has publicly articulated for years - and which now seems to have the support of this town council, the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh would suffer mightily. If Edgemont becomes a village, the impact on the rest of Greenburgh would be enormous. Town taxes would either have to be raised steeply, or else deep cuts in services would have to be made. For the town council to give support to Bernstein is outrageous. I hope that by notifying the residents of Greenburgh of this plan, I have halted the movement toward such a calamity. I believe that my doing so deserved commendation.
The town council members may deny that they support Mr. Bernstein's plan to break up the town and to make Edgemont a village. To admit it would be political suicide. Let us trust the old maxim that actions speak louder than words.
Your editorial rightly noted that there is acrimony in the town government. The reason is that the four councilpersons, led by Messrs. Steve Bass and Francis Sheehan, but supported by Eddie Mae Barnes and Diana Juettner, have decided to substitute a town council form of government in place of a Town Board form of government - a patently illegal act. Your editorial has opened this up, but I think that more watchfulness is in order. I hope that you keep that watch.
The writer is Greenburgh town supervisor.

Anonymous said...

Wow, all this in the news makes everyone in Greenburgh government (not just the board, not just the supervisor, but anyone associated with Greenburgh management) look foolish and shady.

This will certainly negatively affect economic development; I surely wouldn't want to open a business along the blighted sections of Central Park Avenue in Greenburgh, for example, with all this political lunacy going on.

Nine villages + no unincorporated areas would make everything so much more sane.

Anonymous said...

I think 9 Villages is a great idea. I think before we go with any new building (like a court hosue) we should evaluate. We dont need a huge Town Hall. I think it can easily be reconfigured to have courtroom etc. space.

Anonymous said...

10:58 and 10:34 Anon

Get real dopes! Ever hear of State Law!

Why don't you have 9 police and fire departments, and nine village judges and nine cat-o-nine tails, and 9 Ball replace football, and Nine Tailors Waiting (Lord Peter Whimsey) and Ninety-nine Bottles of Beer on the Wall, and nine baseball players, and nine innings, all wrapped up in Greenburgh.

Nein, to you nuts!

Son of the Shadow

Anonymous said...

I don't know what your babble is about, Son of Shadow, but nine villages and no unincorporated area would make so much sense, and there's no law prohibiting such. It's essentially up to us, the citizens of Unincorporated Greenburgh.

Choosing to remain in this centuries old governmental structure creates too many legal dramas, and makes us look stupid in the news.

bonus said...

an added bonus - no need for a supervisor

hal samis said...

Not to mention, nine village meetings and a partridge in a pear tree.

Anonymous said...

little difference btwn having 6 villages meetings + 1 town meeting or having 9 village meetings ... except that things would be done more efficiently and with less psychodrama ... and villages might choose to collaborate on services without unincorporated silliness getting in the way ... why didn't someone come up w this sooner ... everybody wins

Anonymous said...

I thought Tim Lewis was the town attorney. Why is it that Bernsteins signature was needed to close the Dromore Rd. deal. Has Tim become second fiddle in the Sheehan organization.

hal samis said...

Has anyone asked Suzanne Berger whether she favors 9 villages and a partridge in a pear tree?

Let me know when this is happening so I can debut "just 27 votes".

Anonymous said...

Silly old man, it would still be "just three votes" for townwide affairs, which would be minimal if everyone were incorporated into villages.

Anonymous said...

If Edgemont becomes a village, then Hartsdale and Fairview would have no choice. They can not afford to carry the costs alone. And Feiner is not trying to negotate any reasonable settment of the A/B issues.

edgemont village - why not said...

if edgemont wanted to become a village why shouldnt they be able to? edgemont doesnt owe anything to hartsdale or fact these two areas are being subsidized by edgemont.

Anonymous said...

Edgemont will not become a village because most of all the residents are happy the way things are. The ones that are pushing for this are just a few who live in the vicinity of the chosen few who claim that they represent all the residents of the area.The representatives tried this many years ago, and were defeated. It would cost the residents much more tax dollars for less services. Who needs this.Why get rid of a good thing just to satisfy a few.

Anonymous said...

I dont live in what you presumably call one of the chosen areas of Edgemont. I live West of Central Ave.

Since the last time any vote was taken (which I have only lived here for a couple of years, and no vote has been taken since I moved here), Feiner has spent $$$ millions of dollars on open space every where except Edgemont, and then only charging unincorporated Gburgh. I think many people are waiting for the lawsuits to resolve matters. Significant changes to the A/B budget may result in others negotating budget issues. Edgemont may not be willing to then.

Anonymous said...

Is the head of the ECC elected by residents of Edgemont or only by a handful of Edgemont residents? When was the vote taken? How many people elected Bernstein?
Bernstein doesn't speak for Edgemont.

Anonymous said...

I as a resident of Edgemont was never asked to vote . Something tells me that they vote amongst themselves. If one resigns the other takes over. Yes it's true he does not represent all the residents in Edgemont. Never heard of him until his appearence at town hall for meetings.

Anonymous said...

If you live in Edgemont and have an interest in the community's affairs, then you should attend the regular meetings:

(no August meeting)
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...

You did not have to post the dates of you meetings. If I was interested in your running the town I would attend. Thank you but no thanks.

hal samis said...

Famous Lawyer may have let his ego get him in trouble and the draft gift agreement that he wrote has become his Waterloo. A document that says it is to remain secret does not offer much hope that the Town was to be told of its "right" to purchase the parcel. Such agreements relating to the sale and purchase by the Town would be handled by the Town's legal staff and they would not be "secret".

Just for the moment, let's ignore that the Town Supervisor was not to be told; let's ignore why I was not to told either (although such postings as this make clear the reason); instead let's focus on what looks clear: that Mr. Bernstein and his "assigns" were the intended buyers and that there was no intention of making the Town aware of this conveyance. True the Town is mentioned but that is subterfuge, if it was the intended recipient then the agreement would be between the developer and the Town, an intermediary is unnecessary and by following the terms of the agreement (that parties keep the agreement secret) it provides the clue that the Town was never to be informed.

All the developer was looking to do was get out, 100% out at his cost. All of the maskings re 20% retention was just the incentive to cause the buyer to perform, these provisions being items that Mr Bernstein the buyer could not provide. However, upon closing and consideration for the full purchase price, all that language disappears.

So, do you really believe that Mr. Bernstein was just joking about Egemont Village Hall or does this look like a stop along the way.

A stop that was never meant to be open to the Public.

And that is why we haven't heard from him since. And, his protege Suzanne Berger, apparently sees no "issue" regarding this matter either.

Anonymous said...

feiner wanted to turn one dromore road into a park. bernstein wanted to turn the property into a village hall for edgemont. more traffic (horrible), bad for the nature center's eco system (horrible). was bob planning to place a holding, prison cell at our new village hall?

Anonymous said...

Civic associations in Edgemont accused Feiner of not wanting to acquire park space in Edgemont.He had intention to buy Dromore Rd, property, BUT SHEEHAN and company plus two citizens of Edgemont had different ideas.So you see how the town council has teamed up with the civic association to go against the supervisor,town attorney and the residents of Greenburgh. The ethics board will not do anything to the council the way the rules read now.They are fully protected.of any wrong doing.Another the haters should stop saying that Feiner fails to protect open space in Edgemont. Where is all this space .Please let the residents of Greenburgh know .I would like to know where this open space is.There's plenty of land at the Edgemont High School,that's the only land that I see . .

Anonymous said...

The issue of 6 or 9 villages is basically irrelevant at the moment. There is not going to be three more villages, plain and simple. It is not going to happen. With regards to Edgemont, sensible people have studied the issue of incorporation and secession for a number of years now. Most believe, and understand, it would not be cost effective and would put greater burdens on them in the future. The bulk of their tax burden, like many other areas, is the cost of their schools. Therefore like Scarsdale, Bronxille, Rye, Chappaqua and other high tax areas with excellent schools, people are moving in, paying high prices for their homes, staying 10-15 years and moving on. They believe whole heartedly in the "greater fool" theory that property values will continue to increase and they will benefit, in the long run, by profiting handsomely on their future sale. This formula has worked for many, many, years and may continue to do so. But, unfortunately it may end. Therefore property taxes to fund education is, and may become, a lose, lose proposition. For the people who wish to establish long-term roots in any of these communities, the cost of staying, after their children graduate, is becoming prohibitive.

Therefore areas with a better mix up commercial property, and more ratables, have a better chance to lower their taxes, but take the chance of having the quality of their student body change.

In fact, this is what has happened to excellent school systems in New Rochelle, Mount Vernon and White Plains over the past 40-50 years. Will it catch up to the villages and the towns? It may! But the demand for an excellent educational system, under this system, seems linked to high property values, which keeps the so-called hoi poi loi out. High taxes and high property values insures both exclusivity and smaller student bodies. Therefore the smaller villages pay for what they get. Is this better for them or America? The jury is out!

This problem is not easily solved, as Hal Samis and anyone else with a brain understands.

It would seem to any casual observer that Bernstein, McNally and their allies have another agenda, and other "fish to fry." They want power, and power moves through the office of the Supervisor. That is why, according to the Troy affidavit, they arranged this charade over protecting "parkland" in Edgemont. It seems quite clear to me and many others that they wanted to use that ruse to get a huge turnout in Edgemont to skew the overall primary vote to Suzanne Berger, a person who knows little about Greenburgh or government. She would be a pliable tool in their hands and the door would be open for their hidden agenda.

Can you imagine anyone running for office after that person engineered a "sweet heart" contract for her law firm with the Town Board power broker! Did she ever believe that people could not add two and two?

All this other "stuff" about Bernstein, the schools, and parkland, and the legitimate meeting with developers and the Town Board are all obfuscation. S & R Developement provided a convenient opening for it seems a devious plan. This has nothing to do with lawyers, developers or anything like that. Developers, as Samis has said, time and again, exist, and hurray for them. We are not Luddites, are we? But it seems that a fortuitious gift of this "affidavit" to the Supervisor, and his exposing of its contents, derailed their plan.

Meanwhile, with regards to developement, that is why we have zoning and zoning boards, and that is why the Town Board and the Supervisor create "public policy" for the town within the constraints of the Constitution.

Don't lose focus and take your eye off the ball. This election has nothing to do with a problem of good or bad government, or "pay for play" what ever the hell that means. This is over raw power and who wants it and what they will pay and arrange to get it.

Supervisor Feiner is not perfect, and no one else is. But he's honest, hard-working, progressive, and even though he engages and listens to developers, as any executive does, he deals with them fairly and looks for the best deal for the people of Greenburgh. Stick with him before you change for someone who knows nothing, and is controlled by the Bosses.

Richard J. Garfunkel

a 9th term? - spare us! said...

feiner campaign manager richard Gaffe-funkel fails to mention that feiner has been in office 16 years and as was pointed out on channel 12 over the weekend - feiner is seeking his 9th (!) term in office as greenburgh supervisor.

after 16 years, we cannot afford anymore Taxter Ridges, WestHelps, and a supervisor who takes campaign money from the town's outside auditors! Feiner's divisive pandering has positioned greenburgh into a dead end. nothing can be accomplished until he is voted out of office. richard, mark the date - its going to start on september 18 and end on election day in november.

Anonymous said...

The reality is that most people do not really care about most of the issues that are being discussed on this blog. At the end of the day Feiner will win and so will Bass and Barnes.

Anonymous said...

Anon: 3:04 pm- You are raving! Taxter Ridge was unanimously voted for with wild and exuberent joy by citizens and open-space advocates! Lay off that Jim Jones kool-aid! The whole Board supported WestHelp, and read the accounting or get someone to help you with the big words. Outside auditors and developers give to Board members and the Greenbuirgh Democrats who share it with their picked favorites on the Board. In other words Boss-controlled money washed to Bass and the others.

Grow up 3:04 and stop raving! You are an embarrassment to rationale discourse. By the way, 16 years isn't so bad. I can remember scores of excellent Westchester officials like Chappy Pucilipo, Al DelVecchio, Nita Lowey, Ed Michaelian, Dick Hendey, Stanley Church, Ogden Reid and numerous others, on both sides of the aisle, who served with distinction and also for long successful terms.

This a an internal struggle for power within factions of the Democratic Party. In a general election Feiner could beat anyone 3-1! In fact, he'll probably defeat The Double Whopper with Cheese 3-1!

The Son of the Shadow!

feiner sinking fast said...

gaffe-funkel a/k/a shadow and his juvenile twins protest too much. feiner is in deep political trouble. he almost lost last time and his negatives keepincreasing. does anyone doubt the last two years have been his worst?

hal samis said...

Tis more the pity that Ms Berger is not as equally cognizant of the problems that are so clear to 5:48.

Anonymous said...

in case people have not noticed isn't Edgemont part of Greenburgh, and not a seperate village. All residents must be treated equally, let's put as much effort in the rest of the town as a select few are putting into "Edgemot" and the town will be a much better place to live

Anonymous said...

if Taxter Ridge was left to be a golf course with a few home around we would be reaping tax dollars with a minumum of services to the location and a golf course at last look was open space as far as i can see

feiner's big mistake said...

absolutely right. taxter ridge should be sold. danny gold snookered feiner.

Anonymous said...

About Taxter Ridge I had mentioned it some time ago to sell it to a developer for a golf course,and at the same time build town house in the outer perimeters. That's the way trump did it in Briarcliff. Look at all the revenue this would bring in. The answer was that the State has something to say about selling the land. Whom do we contact.

Anonymous said...

The problem is Feiner rushed in. What does he care? He lives up high in a gated community with all the recreational facilities.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that Feiner always rushes in. His head is filled with wonderful ideas, but his ability to think issues through and figure out what will happen when his ideas go into effect is completely absent. He has all of the classic symptoms of a child with ADHD - smart but disorganized and totally unaware of it.

hal samis said...

Dear 3:04,

As I remember there were some anonymous members of SDS, were you one of them?

Because in your later years you have not mellowed and still want to tear down the walls and change the system.

There are no term limits in Greenburgh. Ask the Town Council to Resolve away this situation. OK, that means that at least three of them might have to bid their own adieus.

Accepting campaign contributions from outside auditors. Mr. Bass, get on that rail leading out of Town also.

WESTHELP and Taxter Ridge troubling you, speak to your Town Council. All but Sheehan were there to vote in favor and when Sheehan joined the party, he became the fifth vote to allow everything else possible.

And now that we are stucj with Taxter Ridge, anyone on the Town Board allocating any money to open it to the Public? Check the capital budget through 2009.

But you say nothing is possible until Feiner is out of office. Where have you been. You mean you haven't followed my logic of saying just three votes? There are four Town Council members who "appear" to oppose Feiner at every twist and turn.

The four Council members are:
Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes (both up for re-election), Diana Juettner and Francis Sheehan.

Pick your three favorite soft touches and ask them to vote for something not only "right" but near and dear to you. Something that you think can't happen while Feiner is in office.

You only need three votes to make it happen.

It is 12:00, hurry outside and if you see a star, make your wish.