Tuesday, August 14, 2007

ONE DROMORE LEGAL DEFENSE--USING OUTSIDE LAWYERS AGAINST MY RECOMMENDATION

The Greenburgh Town Board interviewed a lawyer from an outside firm who might be asked to defend the town in the One Dromore Road claim.
I believe that the Town Board should not hire an outside law firm and should do the legal work in house.
The developer of a proposed housing complex near the Greenburgh Nature Center alleges that 4 members of the Town Board met with him to discuss the property (I was excluded from the meeting) and that discussions took place that could have led to the land being used as an Edgemont Village Hall.
I do not think it is appropriate for the Town Board members to discuss a significant land use matter without advising me of the meeting. One member of the Town Board had advised the Developer (if the affidavit is correct) that no deal would be made if I was informed of the meeting. This is an outrage.

Outside legal fees could exceed $60,000 if the matter goes to trial. Most of the funds (except $25,000) would be paid for by insurance companies.
We have the ability to do the work ourselves, using existing town personnel.

132 comments:

Citizens Have A Right To Know said...

Paul,

This is not such a bad thing. The Sheehan/Bernstein method of doing business will be exposed for all to see. It will lead to Sheehan's defeat in two years and that is certainly woth $60,000. Once the public sees that Sheehan & Co. avoided violating the open meetings law by playing musical chairs in Harrison, the public will turn on them. Of course Sheehan & Co. didn't realize that there is a law against circumvented laws. THAT IS the law that they broke by playing musical chairs.

Paul, the only thing that you need to insist upon is that Sheehan and the Town Council testify under oath as to how the meeting in Harrison was conducted. For example, Sheehan and Bass might have shown up at 6:00 PM and then left and then Barnes and Juetner might have shown up at 7:00 PM. The citizens have a right to know how this meeting was conducted and what actions were taken to circumvent the law.

Anonymous said...

If the Town Council doesn't have any confidence in Tim Lewis, which is understandable, then get a new Town Attorney.

Anonymous said...

Here is a question.

Should the town council be found to have met illegally with the developer, can we sue the members of the council personally for a reimbursement of all legal fees? Why should we pay for their attorney if they were the ones who acted illegally????

Anonymous said...

The reason we need outside counsel is because Paul is so actively supporting the developer. Maybe they will hire him if he loses the election? Oh wait, if he didnt have political power, who would want him????

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else noticed all the potential trouble this Town has been in since Emperor Frances took command? Using Young Kamineer to violate the First Amendment Rights of the Valhalla School Superintendant, possibly circumnavigating Open Meetings Laws, Illegally changing the Zoning Map etc. Things certainly have gotten alot more livlier around here now that Emperor Sheehan assumed total command of Greenburgh haven't they????

Truth wil out said...

There, in the 9:39 blog, you have it again -- the interminable and knowing lies.

Feiner has not been "actively supporting the developer" and in fact hasn't supported the developer at all, actively or inactively. What Feiner did was to let us all know about the secret and illegal dealings between the Town Council and Bernstein/McNally, and the plans to have the Dromore property be turned into an Edgemont Village Hall.

But do I think that stating the truth will deter the liars from continuing their lies? No, I don't. They couldn't exist if they didn't lie.

Anonymous said...

Paul is not supporting the developer. He is raising questions that need to be raised. If the Town Council met with the developer and excluded both Paul and Samis at the behest of their Edgemont Controllers, the rest of us need to know. If the Town Council did not act improperly, why won't they all sign a statement under oath and under penalty of perjury attesting to the facts of their meeting with the developer? Innocent people have nothing to fear from the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Anonymous said...

Of course Paul is supporting the developer. And everyone everyone knows it, even Paul and Hal.

Anonymous said...

Since when has Feiner supported developers? Did Paul support development of Taxter Ridge? NO. Did Paul want Home Depot in Greenburgh? NO. Did Paul support 81 bedrooms on Dromore Road? NO. Did Paul support Ridge Hill? NO. Paul typically looks to acquire property that is prime for development via deals with the County and State to help minimize taxpayer costs. If anything, Paul can be criticized for NOT DEVELOPING Greenburgh ENOUGH.

9:47 is right said...

9:47 is right. The Town Council should sign a statement before tonight's meeting stating what the facts are concerning Dromore Road. The Town Council can not hide behind Tim Lewis's suggestion of no public comments. If the Council has nothing to hide, then tell us all what happened.

Anonymous said...

I am not a lawyer but I don't think that the Town can defend the Town Council members if they are found to have acted illegally. The proper thing for them to do is to hire their own lawyer and if there is no finding of illegailty then they can be reimbursed for their legal costs.

That is what is done in the corporate world and it is the general rule about indemnification.

If the Town Council persists in having the town pay for their lawyer, then if they are found to have acted illegally they will have to reimburse the town. If they don't, then there is a good question for the political Ethics Board we now have. Or for a resident who can sue.

Anonymous said...

Will Paul plese stop relying on the develpers' affidvates. obvisouly he wants this develped.

feiner off the mark, as usual said...

while we are at it, why not get the millions back from the valhalla school district? thats real money as opposed to the chicken feed supervisor pothole is complaining about in the dromore matter.

Anonymous said...

The Dromore Road situation is potentially very serious to the Town in its entirety and to the four council members. It seems to me that Sheehan had the zoning map altered in March 2007 illegally. This opens up a serious legal issue where the developer can sue the Town and win damages for delays incurred while the Zoning Board was taking its time to make a decision on a map that was altered in violation of Greenburgh's own laws and procedures. Also, if the Town Council got around the Open Meetings Laws by showing up at different times to the developers' office, the political consequences for them might be dire. The Open Meetings Law is essentially a toothless one. Even if the Council is found to have violated it, not much will happen. However, if it is found out that they played a game of musical chairs in Harrison, all of Greenburgh will come to realize that they can't be trusted at all and are in fact ordered about by a small group of Edgemonters.

The Big E said...

Dear 11:37

You raise an interesting point about the influence that the Edgemonters Bernstein and McNally have. Community leaders in every part of Town at one time or another have opposed some project. NEVER has it occurred where these community leaders were able to influence the town council to such an extent as Bernstein and McNally. When in Greenburghs history has there been a meeting attended by the Council and community leaders like what happened for the property in Edgemont? Also, wasn't Sheehan's Comprehensive Community filled until Michelle McNally demanded to be on it? Yes, these Edgemonters weild a vast amount of power at Town Hall. Should Berger win the election, there will be no need for an Edgemont Village Hall. Bernstein and McNally will be able to replace the Greenburgh Flag flying at Town Hall with a big "E."

dream on said...

dear anon at 11:37

"seems to you that sheehan illegally changed the map.....

and your proof for this is what?

the property has always been zoned single family and the troys knew it

all that happened was an admininstrative mistake. you vastly overestimate the alleged seriousness of the dromore road situation. stop fantasizing.

hal samis said...

Dear 1:02 (dream on),

Apples to mud.

You respond to 11:37 saying the property has always been zoned single family. Which, by Zoning Resolution may indeed be true.

However that is not what the poster brought to readers' attention.

What 11:37 SAID was that Sheehan illegally changed the MAP. The map that was shown to the Developer DID show the property to be in the CA district. I don't believe anyone can PROVE that Sheehan caused the map to be changed (the map HAD been changed in February 2007 illegally -- this is fact) but this is not what you answered.

And what you throw away as a "mere administrative mistake" does not belie existing Town Code which says the MAP is the authority.

That is why the matter is before the Zoning Board and why it may end in the Civil Courts.

Stop fantasizing.

What is common to Mr. Bersntein's proselytizing is that everything is either black and white or a no hands lay-up.
That is why there is still no final decision on Bernstein #1.

plane is coming to take you away haha said...

illegally changed in february? by who? has anyone filed a criminal complaint? dare you to do so if you really think that is the case.

guess what - da plane is coming. time to leave fantasy island.

hal samis said...

To change a map, requires a Resolution.
The map was changed without such.

I may travel by plane; that itself says more than those who flap their wings.

Or,

Blessed are those who run around in circle; they shall be known as big wheels.

Anonymous said...

How many people care about these issues besides the 7 people who regularly comment here? How many voters does Feiner need to keep his six figure public payroll job forever? 1000 every two years give or take? The only issues, as far as i see, is that taxes keep going up and services don't improve. All the rest is commentary (and petty bickering among those living off taxpayer money while the rest of us work for a living.)

Anonymous said...

.One must find out who's initials are on the new zoning map,then ask if Sir Francis gave them the orders to make the change in the early part of this year.Samis is right there was no resolution by the board to make this change.SO SO HERE WE GO AGAIN, how was this change made and under whose orders. You cannot blame Feiner for this.

Anonymous said...

Many people care about the issues because this will cause taxpayers more money. If Sheehan and the Edgemont civic associations have their way ,concernig a moritorium on construction, you will be paying much more taxes.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim,

I guess this blog is of no concern to you.

Anonymous said...

In order to change a zoning map the Zoning Board must first approve the change and then it must be sent to the Town Board for their approval. The March 2007 change was made in violation of these procedures. In Court it will be very easy to establish the chain of events that led to this illegal act. All one has to do is put Mark Stellato under oath and ask him which Board Member ordered the change.

Anonymous said...

The initials on the map are M.L. and R.R.

Jim Lasser said...

Dear Anonymous at 2:42PM -
I am interested in the contents of this blog - however, I don't post just for the joy of reading my own prose. I believe independent outside counsel is probably appropriate as the Town Attorney seems to have a built-in conflict of interest.
As for the speculation and "he said, she said", I'm really not interested in anything except the facts. I'm not compelled to attack or defend anyone - so I will wait for a determination of the facts.

Question for Jim said...

Jim

Would you be in favor of our elected Town Council to make a statement under oath to set out the facts for all of us to see? Do you believe that we the people are entitled to know whether or not our elected officials conspired to circumvent the open meetings laws?

hal samis said...

ML is the recently departed Mike Lepre and RR is a youngish hire who probably didn't know what he had been told to do.

More interesting is 2:31 who complains that only 7 people are interested, is 7:31 one of the 7 leaving 6 or is he/she 8?

As for taxes going up and services going down, let me supply two distinct thought trains:
1) just three votes
2) moratoriums tend not to increase town revenues

Anonymous said...

Obtaining outside counsel tends to be such a waste of money. In this case, however, it's unfortunately essential.

hal samis said...

Dear Mr. Lasser (Jim),

Sitting on a fence becomes quite uncomfortable over time especially if you have to wait for a determination by the Courts. Mr. Dumpty, with the width of a wall to sit on presumably fell off (although there are conspiracy advocates who argue that he was pushed). Although this may all sound a little too close to the wall at the Nature Center and Mr. Dumpty may produce a mental image of a party involved, there still remains the bitter after taste of the allegations that arise from a sworn statement, even if they were submitted by that dreaded species of homo sapiens called Developer Erectus.

While you have loyalties to your neighbors and ties to your friends within the school district, I call upon you to be a little more specific in regard to your post:

"I believe independent outside counsel is probably appropriate as the town attorney seems to have a built-in conflict of interest" but having made this pronouncement you have no position because you are 'waiting for a determination the facts'. You and Jack Webb.

Although the elasticity of the "probably" and "seems" might have been inspired by someone of prominence within your calling set.

Maybe I am naive but I think this blog topic, which you have entered of your own free will, needs an explanation for "built-in conflict of interest". The Town Attorney may not be the best man for the job, mounting such a defense may not be his specialty but I don't readily accept your conflict of interest dismissal.

The Town Attorney's primary responsibility is to defend the Town of Greenburgh, first, if not last but always. With that as the mandate, indeed that being the basis upon which he was hired -- and I believe Mr. Lewis's background is litigation -- then for him not to perform such tasks and cause an additional burden upon taxpayers is a dereliction of his duties.

Holding on to that thought which I grant does not answer your analysis of the need, I ask you to explain what you base your assumption upon that there is a "conflict of interest" surrounding him. By all accounts, Mr. Lewis did not attend any meetings with the Developer; Mr. Lewis did not create the Town Zoning Code; Mr. Lewis is not the Town's legal representative to the Zoning or Planning Boards; Mr. Lewis is not a resident of Edgemont...so what is it? I ask this of a person who is waiting for the determination of the facts before rendering his own opinion.

RSVP

feiner to blame for outside counsel said...

Outside counsel is needed because Feiner has created a conflict of interest for the town.

As Samis is well aware, Feiner publicly sided with the Dromore developer in his claims against the town.

By taking sides against his own town, Feiner has made clear that he sees nothing wrong in communicating privileged and confidential information about the town's legal defense to the Dromore developer himself. He's done this before in other matters and he's doing it here.

As a result, lawyers in the town's legal department who have been involved in the Dromore matter have divided loyalties.

For example, there is apparently a lot more to the Troy boys than meets the eye. But lawyers in the town's legal department do not want to get involved for fear that they'll be obligated to tell Feiner who in turn will put the Troys on notice of what the town's found out about them.

That kind of action by Feiner undermines the town's defense, which is why the town's legal department wants to stay clear of the matter.

It's also why the $60,000 cost of hiring outside counsel for this matter is entirely Feiner's fault.

Anonymous said...

Of course Feiner is to blame. He is always to blame. It ia surely Feiner's fault that Bernstein met secretly with Bass and Shehan and the developer. It is absolutely Feiner's fault that the four Councilpersons met secretly with the developer and Bernstein to try to make a deal that would make Dromore Road the site of Edgemont Village Hall. And of course it must have been Feiner who forced Bernstein to write a draft of a contract that would make a gift of the Domore Road property to...Bernstein! Nobody but Feiner could be so clever as to do all these things without ever being there or knowing about these things.

As for the notion that Tim Lewis has a conflict of interest, maybe so but that is because he misconceives his job. He is the Town's lawyer. He is not the Town Council's lawyer. His responsibility is to protect the Town's residents, not to protect the Town Council when they act improperly. If the Town Council wants to be protected they should hire a lawyer and the Town should not pay for the lawyer unless the Council is vindicated, which is certainly unlikely.

Anonymous said...

Sheehan has cost us over $70,000 with the hiring of Young Kamineer whose only skills seem to be an ability to threaten women and now he will cost us a minimum of $25,000 to defend his illegal activity on Dromore Rd. That is $100,000. Thank you Emperor Frances!

feiner's a fraud said...

The news on Feiner just seems to go from bad to worse.

Now we hear that before negotiating that WestHELP deal with Valhalla, Feiner took $10,000 from a convicted felon from Mayfair Knollwood who stole money from elderly clients and that when the state comptroller last November said the deal was illegal, Feiner hired this guy as his lawyer to defend the deal.

Feiner never told the public about any of us. Feiner's a fraud.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe Bernstein? He's tryng to save himself by bringing up old business,why does he not speak of his own and McNally's wrong doings.

feiner relationship with felon documented said...

What's not to believe about what Bernstein said?

The $10,000 that Feiner got from Caro before doing the WestHELP deal with Valhalla is a matter of public record filed by Feiner himself. Feiner didn't deny it because he can't.

Nor can Feiner refute the fact that Caro is a convicted felon who stole from the elderly. It was in all the newspapers.

The fact that Feiner hired Caro only last November to be his lawyer on WestHELP is also something Feiner cannot deny. Didn't Bernstein hold up a copy of the agreement that Feiner signed with Caro?

Sounds like Bernstein's really got the goods on Feiner with this one. A $10,000 campaign contribution from a convicted felon who stole from the elderly who Feiner then hires to be his lawyer on WestHELP.

As unbelieveable as it may sound, it's all documented -- all true.

You can't make this stuff up.

hal samis said...

More of the big lie from an anonymous source.

I respond because I, Samis, am not aware of Feiner publicly siding with the Developer against the Town. Since it is "public" then it will be a simple matter for the anonymous blogger to bring the blog up to speed on what Feiner said or did publicly.

Bring it on!

More difficult to prove since it does not exist other than in the mind of the anonymous blogger is what did Feiner communicate that was confidential and privileged?
Only the Town Attorney and the Town Council/Legislative Aide would be aware of such material, if it existed, and thus either they themselves have leaked this material to the blogger or they are the anonymous source writing on this blog.

Which is it?

feiner betrayed oath of office said...

I am not the town attorney and I'm not the legislative aide. I am a lawyer, however, who can read and write English, and I know when a public official betrays his office by taking sides against a party suing the town he's sworn an oath to protect and defend.

Here, Feiner publicly sided with the developer in the developer's claim against the town when, on July 13, 2007, using the town equipment and materials, Feiner issued a press release in which he stated, as town supervisor, that the underlying issue in the legal proceeding against the town is whether the property can be developed as a multifamily structure and Feiner then adopted as true, without any qualification, the developer's contention against the town that "[t]he Town's zoning map shows [the Dromore property] to be in a CA-1 zone, which permits prescribed multi-family development."

In fact, the Town's official zoning map shows this property zoned single family residential and the Town's position is that any zoning map showing otherwise had to be the result of a scrivener's error that has since been corrected because there is no zoning ordinance adopted by the town which ever changed the zoning for that property from single family to multifamily.

Feiner's ill-advised statement in that one sentence alone put him at odds with the town and created the very conflict of interest which now gives rise to a need for outside counsel.

Feiner also sided with the developer against the town by vouching for the developer's false allegations that, among other things, a proposed moratorium on Central Avenue construction was aimed at the Dromore property.

I don't care what Feiner's motivation may have been, his actions in siding with the developer against the town are reckless and irresponsible. He's needlessly wastes taxpayer money when he plays this game.

Anonymous said...

Feiner is not only wasting money, he is upsetting those of us who live near the property. Local residents, NOT BERNSTEIN OR MCNALLY, but others went to the zoning meeting on this. They are upset.

hal samis said...

Dear Mr. "Lawyer" presumably not the none attorney Lawyer of the Nature Center,

It is comforting to know that even lawyers can read and write English.
Thanks for the assurance. If you are a lawyer AND admitted to the BAR, I am sure that as an attorney licensed to conduct business within the State of New York, you, as an officer of the Court, are well aware how important is to safeguard and tell the truth.

As an assumed resident, you are also aware that it is equally important that our public officials do not lie.

Hence what you cite as the public statement, upon which the Town can lose the whole shooting match, is that Feiner said (as per you -- I'm not denying I just don't have it at hand) that the Town map was wrong -- something that you, yourself, acknowledge to be true and correct due to a scrivener's error. That is the extent of Feiner siding with the Developer against the Town, admitting what everyone knew and knows as a fact and had already been flagged, even before Feiner, in the Developer's affidavit to the Zoning Board. That is the conflict for the Town Attorney but not for an Attorney in private practice. Who would have thunk that the truth presents so many hurdles to be overcome.

Before I continue, take a deep breath and hold it, I'll let you know when to breath...

As for acknowledging the Developer's "false accusations" that the proposed moratorium was aimed solely at Dromore...I don't see you providing any support for this claim that Feiner did indeed do this.

Keep holding your breath.

If Feiner did (and you still need to prove it) say that the moratorium was aimed solely at the Dromore parcel, then that was not a lie, it was the truth. What other property owner along Central Avenue rushed forward to file residential plans in anticipation of the impending moratorium preventing such development? For that matter, what other owner filed plans for any development during the brief time that the moratorium appeared to be moving forward at the Town level? In fact, by the time the moratorium collapsed, no one else had come forward with new development plans. Since the reasons for any moratorium had to do with the expressed concerns that new residential constuction would further burden the Edgemont School District and that Edgemont would welcome new commercial development, the direction that the moratorium talk was taking was to prevent residential and allow commerical. So, despite your anonymous assurances, I call you a liar and reaffirm that the moratorium was aimed solely at the Dromore parcel, the only site with intended development plans.

hal samis said...

Oh sorry,
You can now breathe.

Anonymous said...

More from the Son of the Shadow

Last night all of us were privileged to see and witness the “where as master”, Sir Francis the Duck, aka The Talking Mule, dedicate himself to not only the saving of the Dobbs Ferry Hospital, but having it named after himself. He justified that bold action by reminding the select audience at Town Hall and all of us in telly-land, that his long hours in the electro-shock therapy unit, entitled him to first dibs on naming rights. He felt that his long-association with those electric cattle prods would stimulate him beyond his almost legendary verbosity, which hallmarks his role as the “Shadow Supervisor.” Who should know more about this action, than the Son of the Shadow?

But of course, along with Sir Francis, the surviving members of the CABAL, want the naming rights to the commissary. It has been suggested by their august committee that it be open seven days, and that the varying culinary delights offered at the Francis the Duck Memorial Hospital, be named after the fine folk who put him power!

Some suggestions range from:

1) The Double Whopper and Cheese “Berger” for her many big whoppers!
2) The King Zog II- baloney and cheese with English mustard- for his hot faux exposes!
3) The Edgemont- roast beef on white bread with mayo, because they want to be like Bronxville
4) The Francis “Peking” Duck- served with feathers intact and still quacking!
5) The Krauss - Pigs Knuckles for his days at Stalag 17!
6) The Ella Kate Smith – finishing dessert apple strudel with schmaltz!

More from the Son of the Shadow!

feiner violating oath of office said...

The Dromore developer is contending in legal proceedings against the town that the property was zoned for multifamily development. The town disagrees. It says the property is zoned for single family housing only.

Feiner, the town supervisor, announced on the town's website and on the town's e-mail system that the developer is right. Feiner is obviously siding with the developer.

The developer is also contending that the town tried to keep the Dromore property from being developed by proposing moratorium on Central Avenue construction.

The town presumably disagrees because, according to the town website, the moratorium was aimed at both residential and commercial construction, was to have lasted only six months, and would have covered a number of potential parcels that could have been developed.

Here, too, Feiner, announced on the town's website and e-mail system that the developer was right. He said that the "real purpose" of the moratorium was to acquire the Dromore property for an Edgemont "town hall."

Nevermind that Feiner's statement is preposterous on its face. Feiner took an oath to defend and protect the town. By publicly siding with a developer who is suing the town, Feiner is violating his oath of office, and forcing the town to incur needless expense.

Edgemont residents beware. Feiner's anti-Edgemont campaign -- the one he launched two years ago when he tried to defeat Edgemont's school budget -- is back again in full swing.

There is no doubt that if Feiner and his "team" are elected, they will settle the Dromore claim by giving the developer the zoning change he wants -- Edgemont schools be damned.

Bernstein lies all the time said...

Quit your lying, Bernstein this time writing at 2:51 with your latest nom de character assassination. Feiner never said that the developer was right. What Feiner did was let the town know how you and your friends on the Town Council held secret meetings and that you tried to get Dromore Road for an Edgemont Village Hall, to be paid for by Edgemont residents without them knowing anything about your secret deal.

If you and your friends hadn't kept this secret Feiner might have been able to get funding to buy this parcel for the Nature Center.

I don't think that you know how to tell the truth anymore.

Anonymous said...

The easy to prove illegal action concerning Dromore Road is the changing of the map without the approval of either the Zoning Board and the Town Board. This aspect of this sordid episode is what Sheehan & Co. DON'T WANT us to focus on. SO that means we need to focus on it and demand answers.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the personal attacks against Bernstein.

He didn't write Feiner's July 13 press release, Feiner or his campaign manager did and it's obvious from that document that Feiner is siding with the developer.

By making it public and putting it on the town's website, Feiner accepted as true whatever the developer said in that self-serving affidavit the developer had filed against the town.

In addition, Feiner's own self-serving statements on the web and in the e-mail were all in support of the developer's claim that the property was zoned multifamily when, as the law requires, there was no town resolution that this was ever intended, and that the proposed moratorium was aimed at the developer's property, when Feiner knew there were a number of other properties that would have been affected.

But if Feiner had really wanted to acquire the property on Dromore as open space, why didn't he?

The answer is that, as a result of the Taxter Ridge ruling, the town's share of any money would have to be paid for town-wide and, in retaliation for that decision, Feiner had promised the villages that he wouldn't spend any town-wide money to buy any open space in unincorporated Greenburgh anymore.

So Feiner never had any intention of acquiring this property.

Little wonder then why Feiner's supporters are arguing that there was an "illegal" map change in February, when the map was corrected to show that the Dromore property had indeed been zoned single family residential all along.

Correcting a scrivener's error in a public document is what public officials are supposed to do.

The New York courts have made crystal clear that you can't zone by mistake.

The fact that Feiner himself failed to carry out his responsibility as the town's chief executive officer to make sure the town's zoning map was at all times correct and up to date is no reason why a developer should suddenly get a windfall, and the community should suffer.

Yet that seems to be what Feiner wants and has apparently promised the developer. Feiner certainly hasn't denied it.

What do you expect when Feiner takes $10,000 from a convicted felon who stole from sick and elderly clients and then Feiner then retains the guy to represent him as a lawyer on WestHELP?

Francis Exposed said...

Dear 5:54

AKA Francis Sheehan himself! Mr. Sheehan, you state in your missive the following:

"Little wonder then why Feiner's supporters are arguing that there was an "illegal" map change in February, when the map was corrected to show that the Dromore property had indeed been zoned single family residential all along.

Correcting a scrivener's error in a public document is what public officials are supposed to do."

It is wonderful that you admit to the map change. Now you need to address the FACTS OF THAT CHANGE. How can you possibly state that the map change was not illegal since it states clearly in Town Law that the Zoning Board must first approve any map change and then it must go to the Town Board for their approval? When were these steps taken?

Mr. Sheehan, your ordering of the map change at the behest of your Edgemont Controllers has opened a door for Mr. Try's success in Court. Can't you just stop being a dictator and work within the rules????????

Anonymous said...

The question of what the land COULD be used for is ridiculous. The land COULD be used for an Edgemont Village Hall, a McMansion, or a porn palace.
Does Mr. Feiner invite Mr. Bass to the meetings Feiner holds with Toby Ritter (see last month's bostful posting as a reminder)?

Anonymous said...

It seems Feiner and his supporters will say and do just about anything they can to support the Troys, no matter how silly they sound.

Correcting a map so that it conforms to what the town's zoning ordinances actually say is not changing the map. It's correcting the map.

Leave it to Feiner and his people not to know the difference.

Anonymous said...

We have smoked them out!!!!! The change of the map was not a change afterall, it was a correction! Did that take the collective mind of the CABAL to come up with.

Sorry to dissapoint but the moving of a line on a zoning map in the Town of Greenburgh neccessitates Zoning Board Approval and then approval by the Town Board. This was not a correction. This was a change of a map that was used for decades.

Anonymous said...

If the change of the map was a correction it would not have warranted the initialing by Mike Lepre and RR, two Town Engineers.

Anonymous said...

Feiner and his people are being so silly.

If the moving of a line on the zoning map in the Town of Greenburgh necessites Zoning Board approval and then Town Board approval which it does when a change to the official map is being made, then when the line was moved, erroneously, in 1997, when the town enacted the conservation overlay change, it was of no legal effect.

In other words, the official town map cannot ever legally be changed by a scrivener's error.

Feiner would save himself a lot of embarrassment if,instead of hysterically supporting the developer's position,which he's doing, he spent a few minutes looking at the maps that were put together by the town when the 1997 conservation overlay was adopted.

Those maps couldn't be any clearer. Bye bye Troys.

Anonymous said...

According to Emperor Sheehan, the mistake was made in 1978.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:12 misread his talking points. Sheehan never said any such thing.

In fact, the Troys know the error occurred in 1997. They were told by Samis, who found out at a Council of Greenburgh Civic Association meeting. Fearing that he'd be exposed as the fraudster he may well turn out to be, Ricky Troy quickly had to change his affidavit because he said he'd looked at maps going back to 1996.

Whoops, if he did that, he'd have to admit that he knew about the error.

MEMO TO ALL TOWN WORKERS said...

Given the statements at tonights Zoning Board Hearing, I would never accept orders from Francis Sheehan to do anything. Wait until the whole Town Board acts before you jump for Francis. Mark Stellato will be destroyed on the stand should the Dromore Road mater go to the Courts. He had the Zoning Map changed at the direction of Sheehan. It was illegal and will be proven so.

The best thing that the Zoning Board can do is give Troy want he wants. That is the only way to avoid the very costly lawsuits that will occur should Troy be denied by the ZB. Sheehan's illegal actions could easily cost us taxpayers milions of dollars in damages.

Anonymous said...

Feiner wanted a park.
Sheehan, Bass wanted an Edgemont village hall along with Bernstein.

hal samis said...

It is a shame how unwell Mr. Sheehan really is. Please send him a get well card. He must have had to go to his favorite hospital again tonight. Too bad he was no-show at the Zoning Board meeting and unable to stare down his former comrades, this time as Town Board liaison to the ZBA. But like the line from Casablanca, "they'll always have email".

And Mr. Stellato is still on vacaction too. Well it is August and it is hot out. Perhaps, though, not as hot as it might get at the Zoning Board.

So what do Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Stellato have in common?
Yes there are lots of things but I'm referencing that both of them had been legally served with subpoenas by the Developer's attorney, a very capable gentleman, to appear before the Zoning Board to testify as the "Town". Like where have those darn maps disappeared to and the ones that have "miraculously materialized", they came from where? Are you sure that these maps are the "official" Town maps?
Questions like that and a few more should have been asked but, if no one is around, who can you ask?

Yes Greenburgh under the Sheehan administration has certainly distanced itself from Feiner because the Sheehan government operates on a much higher moral plane. Like how three members of the Town Board (hey look, wasn't that Francis going in the back door) meeting by coincidence at the Developer's office in Harrison on a Saturday, but narrowly missed bumping into each other in the hallway, this was not an attempt to circumvent open meeting law. Right? Maybe Mr. Bass (vacationing himself during one of the two meetings?) will have the opportunity to introduce the State Open Meeting Laws to Greenburgh when polls show his allure fading?

Yes, Greenburgh, Dogpatch and River City Junction are all in need of ways "to keep the new gun moral after school".

This suggests a new approach to ridding the Town of both Sheehan and Stellato: put them under subpoena and they will vanish from sight.

feiner never wanted a park said...

Feiner never wanted a park. He promised village taxpayers he'd never spend the money. He told the Journal News last January that the property should be developed. He's been siding with the developer ever since.

The developer's going to need a zoning change though. Feiner's going rate for a zoning change in Edgemont is around $10,000. That's how much it cost the last developer who asked for and got a zoning change in Edgemont to build multifamily luxury housing.

Feiner charges developers a lot less for zoning changes in other parts of the town.

So will Feiner cut the Troys a break on the price?

hal samis said...

Dear Developer,

You're not from Greenburgh so you may not know the rules. Nothing in Greenburgh gets passed without at least three votes from members of the Town Board.

And you've already met them all. Some in public and some not so publicly but in any case, you now know how to spell their names if you need to fill out the "pay to the order of" line.

If anyone is promising you a Zoning change, you should understand that you will have to write at least 3 checks to the Town Board members, but best plan on 5 because on all of the really important issues, they vote together.

But don't go rate shopping on this blog, the bribery broker never indicates whether it is $10,000 divided by 5 or $10,000 each.

On the other hand, trained as a lawyer, you will assuredly choose to follow the law and pursue your goal through the Courts where I understand you stand a really good chance. It's a shame though that you will have to spend all that time in White Plains in Court but while you're there look around and observe that White Plains is a place that really undertands and benefits from development.

But don't think harshly of us and think that no one in Greenburgh appreciates real estate development. For one, there's that Bernstein fellow who wanted to buy your property to put up an office building. I understand he even went so far as to draw up a purchase agreement but that he didn't want anyone but you to know that he was the buyer. But there's also those unnamed designees that he could assign the agreement to; they might be the real deep pockets backing him. Still, even though we won't get to unmask them, the one thing we do know is that Bernstein was clearly not fronting for the Town, especially after the Town Attorney told us so Wednesday night at the Town Board meeting.

But even though you will have to shell out attorney fees to pursue your case, remember that you saved your own lawyer's appearance fee when you were required not to tell him about your Saturday meetings with the Town Council. As a lawyer yourself, didn't you think it a bit strange for Bernstein, a lawyer, to be negotiating with you while knowing that your own lawyer was not allowed to represent you?
I guess Bernstein felt that he is such a good lawyer that he could represent both the seller and the buyer. But what is it that "they" say, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. You, the seller, seem like a bright guy, so the fool must be that other guy, the buyer.

In any case I wish you luck and continued success and who knows, after a successful sell-out of your units, you may still be back.
I understand that there is still another Edgemont piece that might be offered for sale soon. Just because it is not off Central Avenue shouldn't present a problem because you know that the issue was never about containing the influx of new students into the school system, like everything else it was all about how can we get some of that money for ourselves.

Who knows maybe Bernstein and McNally will put you in touch with the prospective sellers -- just write on the check memo line "finder's fee".

data not drama said...

"the issue was never about containing the influx of new students into the school system"

But that is a legitimate concern, with plenty of supporting data from the NYS DOE.

Anonymous said...

The influx of students into the Edgemont School System is a legitimate concern. However, what Sheehan & Co. did was create a moritorium just to address that one issue/property. That is unfair. Sheehan & Co. were demonstrating the fact that they are controlled by a select group of Edgemonters who always seem to get their way in Town politics.

hal samis said...

If the issue was only about the potential influx of new students (a legitimate issue), then the way for, such a small land mass as defines Edgemont, to neutralize this is to tighten the spigots completely and not to permit the continued drip, drip, dripping of new students entering the system maintain the crisis mentality. And one might argue that is such crises that create and sustain the need for "leaders" to emerge and stick around forever awaiting stabilization. Hey what would fascism be without a train system in disorder.

Cutting to the chase, if Edgemont "leaders" really wanted to make the enrollment crisis go away, then they would have sought a moratorium on ALL residential development in ALL of Edgemont. That would have sounded fair; that would accomplish the goal to the extent permitted by law and it would not extend over into neighboring areas whose children do not attend Edgemont schools and thus do not need to be "protected". In fact, the C7 District has empty desks just waiting for students to sit down.

But a little background.

The much anticipated Bernstein lawsuits were still being kicked around by the Courts and this was becoming an embarrassment to Mr. Bernstein because he had assured his backers that this was a "lay-up" but apparently the Judges were still busy with taking shots from the foul line.

So Edgemont leaders needed to win something, "anything" to justify their posturings and save face in their home community so they settled by picking on some schlub from out of town and figured that their friends on the Town Council would package a moratorium crafted just for this benefit. Didn't work out. The idea of just one Street, a Street which didn't end in Edgemont posed a marketing problem and then the County stepped in and said, "you gotta be kidding". Finally, Greenburgh was still getting over the last town-side moratorium so three years on, three years off would not be much of an advertisement to those who might be interested in renting vacant commercial space.

Please, a six month moratorium is never a six month moratorium. It is just the sugar coating for a bitter pill.

But all this became unnecessary when the zoning map issue came to light.

If you understand the larger picture you will recognize that vampires and cannibals do exist and they live everywhere, even in the house next door. In our little blog world, they hide out seeking their prey by disguising their own issues so that they will be fit in and thrive amongst the more "reasonable" and tolerable issues.

No one can stop, absolutely, new students from appearing at the school house door. Why? Because you can't stop residents from selling their, now barren of students, homes to buyers who may bring existing school age offspring with them or even from producing new models. So, short of creating really unpopular laws and putting Greenburgh center stage in a theater that it doesn't want to perform in, the only way acceptable way to limit school population is to prevent further residential development.

With this being the objective, then why would anyone really concerned with providing a solution want to get involved in determining which student at the school door is acceptable and which student is not. And this is what Edgemont "leaders" wanted to do, whether they realized it or not, and that is why they got tagged as elitist. By still allowing their neighbor to sub-divide his property into one, two or three additional homes, they said that the children living in these homes were ok but the children living in new condos were not. And, there are also some parcels remaining in Edgemont which could by themselves produce the 40 units or less that the Central Avenue or Dromores were anticipated to produce. But these "home grown" sites were tolerable because they were owned by neighbors and the children that would emerge from these new homes somehow would not present the same danger to the school system.

In a nut shell, by not wanting to offend or even court disaster by threatening the assets and/or estates of Edgemont residents, the "leaders" chose to solve the school problems by picking on the properties which had the fewest defenders, or even the fewest voters. In so doing, they produced introduced this concept: Children from Central Avenue, bad.
Children from Hearthstone or Old Army, ok.

But in this choice, they quickly found out that they had bought themselves a public relations disaster and rather than execute a u-turn and start over and stop all residential development from occurring anywhere in Edgemont, these "leaders" were so confident that business as usual would consolidate their power, that they overplayed their hand and their welcome. And all of this was further complicated by their failure to embarrass and maneuver Feiner into, not the Edgemont corner, but the Edgemont "leaders" corner -- there being a differnce.

Bottom line: If Edgemont schools need protection from rising enrollment, then the fair, proper and certainly smart public relations thing to do is to ask for a moratorium on residential construction EVERYWHERE in Edgemont. Because if everyone in Edgemont agrees that the problem exists, then everyone in Edgemont should want to their part to be part of the solution. And that would include as well, the properties along Central Avenue which are contained with the Edgemont envelope.

And this really shouldn't be such a burden on anyone. After all, the moratorium would only be for six months.

data not drama said...

"However, what Sheehan & Co. did was create a moritorium just to address that one issue/property. That is unfair."

" ... the fair, proper and certainly smart public relations thing to do is to ask for a moratorium on residential construction EVERYWHERE in Edgemont."

I'm in full agreement with both statements. I was just concerned that people didn't understand that the growing number of schoolchildren in the district is a legitimate matter, not just some elitist preference.

Anonymous said...

If the number of schoolchildren is growing -- and it is almost certainly going to grow -- isn't the answer to plan for some expansion of the school facilities?

I know that it costs money, but birth control isn't going to happen. Populations are growing everywhere and a responsible community must plan for it.

Anonymous said...

School populations are not growing everywhere -- they are going down in G7.

There is no room to build in Edgemont, the roads to the schools are already overburdened. They have been turned into one way, no turn, etc.

data not drama said...

Of the school districts that serve Greenburgh (Unincorporated and Villages), the only significantly growing school districts over the past four years are Valhalla and Edgemont.

Greenburgh Central is experiencing a sharp, ongoing decline in enrollment, and all the other school districts that serve Greenburgh's students are normal in regards to enrollments (either declining slightly or increasing minimally).

Anonymous said...

Well, if Edgemont's school population is growing then Edgemont has to create room by some expansion. It makes no sense to put a lid on the growth because it won't work.

Anonymous said...

Will Sheehan, Bass take a sworn oath regarding the meeting they had with the developer and Bernstein? We want open space, not a village hall.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that Bernstein and McNally want a Village Hall so Sheehan and Bass have to deliver. Or else Bernstein and McNally and their rich Edgemont friends will cut their funding off.

Anonymous said...

Why does Sheehan, Bass insist on using private lawyers? Even Feiner's opponent Berger agrees with Feiner that the Town Board is wasting dollars.

Anonymous said...

"Edgemont has to create room by some expansion"

already has, and still at capacity again ... even w little new residential construction, valhalla and edgemont student populations just keep growing ... probably empty-nesters moving out and families moving in ... really the only school district in greenburgh that can handle more students (and actually benefit from more students) is greenburgh central

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:47 says "already has, and still at capacity again ..." I wonder, by the way, what the school population was 25 years ago.

So what are you going to do? Impose the Chinese law of one child per family? Even adopting a moratorium on the entire Edgemont school district area won't help if empty-nesters sell to families with children. So either you have to expand, or else find other ways, such as increasing class size or reducing curriculum, all of which are undesirable.

Of course there can be an obvious solutrion -- decrease the size of the district and send some of the current Edgemont district children to Central 7. I can just hear the screaming. But maybe that will increase the quality of Central 7. Of course it will also mean that some children will be exposed to non-Edgemont children and that would be so undesirable -- or maybe very desirable.

Anonymous said...

Yes,

Bob Bernstein lives in the 10530 zip code area of Edgemont, not 10583. Cast off his section to Central 7 and save the rest!!!!!!

Greenburgh Historian said...

Some of the discussion here overlooks a problem.
Harts Brook Park was scheduled for development. Attractive single family homes on 3/4 acre plots, seliing in the $700,000 to $850,000 range. Roughly 80 homes which would have attracted an up-scale (predominantly white) population, added significantly to the Greenburgh Central tax rolls and offered the possibility of reintegrating the school population. What happened? An individual who now sits on the Greenburgh Central Board of Education objected. She said, "Only rich, white folks will be able to afford those houses. It will change the schools - and Woodlands will no longer offer an authentic black experience to its students."
So, the Supervisor heard the wishes of the community and acquired the property as passive parkland. He even got Edgemont to pay for it - look at the way infamous bond was rated by the rating agencies.
No revenues, no expenses and no upscale students.
You wanted it - now live with it.

Anonymous said...

Gee, it's always the Supervisor, isn't it. Maybe we should call him Superman instead.

Anonymous said...

For the Nth time, school district boundaries can only be changed with the permission of both districts AND the state. And since G7 apparently does not want white families, this will not happen.

Anonymous said...

Harts brook park should realy be sold to developers.
Paul we have too many parklands in Greenburgh. which we do not need.
To satisfy the residents who were against development,now we have all this vast land that could be bringing in more revenue for the town.
To have residents bring their dogs there unleashed is a crime. The dogs have taken over most of the land off of Ridge rd.They seem to forget that there is private property there too.
Our schools are in a lot of trouble ,we have to figure a way to make some money to help our tax structure.
We have Taxter ridge property, that would make a great golf course. with a few homes.
The upkeep of all this land will be greater than one anticipated.Just check how much money goes into the other parklands in Greenburgh.
These people who said no to all the development, have probably moved,leaving the others left with these burdens.
One must think about tommorrow,if development does not take place, our children will suffer,and above all our pockets will be empty.
We need money for good education,for all the children.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:48,

You have a lot of good ideas. We need a supervisor who can follow through. NOW.

Anonymous said...

I understand some of the money for these parks came from state etc. We need a supervisor who will negotiate with state. No one is willing to talk to feiner.

Anonymous said...

The one thing about Feiner is HE WILL AND DOES talk to everyone. That is what is so interesting about the Sheehan/Bernstein illegal
Dromore Road Meeting. They DID NOT WANT Paul to talk to the developer because Paul wanted the space for a Park and Sheehan/Bernstein already cut their deal for an Edgemont Town Hall.

Did any of you catch the Zoning Board Meeting the other night. It seems Francis was subpeoned and did not show up to the meeting. Now Francis NEVER misses a meeting. What do you have to hide Francis??????

Anonymous said...

Hopefully the Troy Attorney will subpeona the Edgemont Community Council's Records as well as the Highridge Civic Association's records. That is a quick way to getting to the bottom of whether Bernstein and McNally were charged by their community with acquiring the Dromore Road Property.

Interestingly, no Edgemonter has produced minutes of those organizations to support Bernstein and McNally.

Question For Suzanne said...

As an attorney do you support Francis Sheehan avoiding the Zoning Board Meeting the other night in order to avoid giving testimony?

While we're at it, do you support Edgemont breaking away from the Town and thus condeming the rest of Greenburgh with higher taxes?

Anonymous said...

"thus condeming the rest of Greenburgh with higher taxes"

With Greenburgh serving about a third less of a town, of course the budget would be cut proportionately, leaving zero effect on the taxes of Hartsdale and Fairview.

Anonymous said...

Though the wisest move of all would be for Edgemont, Fairview and Hartsdale to all incorporate as villages, leaving little need for a Greenburgh other than a figurehead NYS umbrella entity.

One town consisting of nine incorporated villages and no unincorporated silliness makes a whole lot more sense than the dysfunctional, antiquated system we have now.

Anonymous said...

I am quite sure if the civic associations mind their own business, selling some of the land that was purchased would be accomplished.
Yes one would have to go to the state for permission,since they did contribute their share.
We need development,to help the school system.If one school say's that they cannot take on the extra children send them to another school.
The problem is no one wants their children to be bussed to other schools. If your child is a good student you need not worry,because they will make it in any school.
The schools are all in Greenburgh,just different areas.
Paul think about going ahead with the selling of some of the property.The way it is at the moment,it is a total waste. Bring in some money.

Anonymous said...

7:22 does not understand the budgetary process. Edgemont contributes far more in taxes than it absorbs in services based on its size. Without question, taxes in the rest of the town would increase should Sheehan/Bernstein get their way and have Edgemont break off.

Anonymous said...

If Edgemont breaks away from the town (as Sheehan & Bernstein want)taxes in the rest of the town will go up.

Anonymous said...

10:09 is right. Edgemont has the priciest homes by far and therefore pays relatively more in town taxes, which are based on property values. If Edgemont splits off every other part of unincorporated Greenburgh will have a crisis. Not only Fairview but Hartsdale and the orther sections.

Bass and Sheehan don't care because Edgemont residents still vote. But residents of every other section of unincorporated Greenburgh ought to recognize what a traitor Bass is, as is the rest of the current Town Council.

That's what happens when a politician is looking to move up. He doesn't care what he leaves behind. That's Bass. And Sheehan.

feiner wrong about incorporation said...

All of the town board members, Bass included, have said they oppose Edgemont's incorporation, but so what?

Incorporating a village does not require the consent of the town board. If enough residents of an unincorporated part of a town want to form their own village, all they have to do is draw up a map, get the required number of signatures on a petition, and the matter gets put to a vote.

The town board doesn't get a vote on the matter. Neither does the town supervisor.

Why would Edgemont be interested in incorporating? There are lots of reasons, most of which have to do with preserving and protecting the Edgemont school district.

If Edgemont votes to incorporate, it will need to acquire municipal services. The more hostile the Greenburgh town board is to Edgemont, the more likely Edgemont leaders would choose to purchase their municipal services elsewhere.

That's why Feiner's opposition to Edgemont's incorporation is so short-sighted. If Edgemont buys its municipal services from Greenburgh, the rest of unincorporated won't see any real change in tax revenues. But with Feiner in charge, Edgemonters would probably favor buying some or all of their services from some other municipality, such as Ardsley or the Village of Scarsdale.

Anonymous said...

"Edgemont contributes far more in taxes than it absorbs in services based on its size."

That seems unjust.


"Edgemonters would probably favor buying some or all of their services from some other municipality"

No matter who's the supervisor, Greenburgh's municipal services are of poor quality. Yonkers would be the best quality for Edgemont to contract with. And since Greenburgh's budget would have to be cut, we could hire some of the displaced workers and purchase some of their equipment to form our own DPW, perhaps being trained by Yonkers.

Anonymous said...

Dear 3:42 AM


Edgemonters would NEVER want to be associated with Yonkers. They would contract with either Scarsdale or Greenburgh.

To 11:38 PM AKA Bob Bernstein,

Bob, give it a rest. The Committee to investigate Edgemont's breaking away from the Town left the completely false impression that it would only cost an additional $800 or so in taxes to Edgemonters. This figure is way off base. Yours and Sheehan's Village of EDgemont will cost Edgemonters several thousand in increased taxes. A large cost for everyone to pay for your hatred of Paul.

Anonymous said...

Trust me, I am not Bob. I am not Michelle either. I am just another annoyed Edgemont resident annoyed with Paul constantly supporting developers, playing games with town budget, and of course the westhelp money.

Anonymous said...

"Edgemont contributes far more in taxes than it absorbs in services based on its size."

That seems unjust.

It's all relative. What's so hard to understand stand about this? If it worth more (your house) you pay more. Not a higher tax %.

Good grief.

hal samis said...

When Villages are created, do existing properties get reassessed?

Anonymous said...

Under NYS law, new villages, like all other municipalities, have the right to reassess if they wish. For example, the Village of Bronxville, which is in the Town of Eastchester, has just about completed a reassessment -- largely to protect its school district.

Edgemont would be in a similar position, but it's not clear, however, whether Edgemont would want to reassess. For Edgemont taxes to remain stable, it needs to preserve and protect its commercial tax base. If reassessment resulted in commercial property owners being taxed proportionately more than their competitors in the rest of Greenburgh, or in Scarsdale or Yonkers, then it's possible some business owners might choose to leave.

On the other hand, some businesses are willing to pay a premium for close access to Edgemont's customers.

Edgemont's bigger problem is control over land use.

When corrupt politicians like Feiner take thousands of dollars from developers to jam in a few more luxury multifamily projects into Edgemont, like Feiner did with Stone Ridge Manor, Edgemont's taxes are forced up.

This is because, by law, single family homeowners must subsidize property taxes paid by owners of multifamily developments -- and when those developments bring with them lots of school age children, as Stone Ridge Manor did, Edgemont taxes must rise to cover the costs.

Anonymous said...

With all the talk and blogs about Edgemont becoming a village there are two things that Edgemonters ought to remember and worry about.

One, Edgemont is likely to get less services than it gets now and we don't know what costs and expenses will come up in this new arrangement. We already know from the Edgemont Village Study that our village taxes will be substantially more than our town taxes.

Two, and more frightening, Bob Bernstein will turn against the village government the way he has turned against the town government. That's who he is. He would die if he didn't harrass some government. Or even worse, he would be the Edgemont government, God help us.

Anonymous said...

Dear anom 11:25am

point 1- True
point 2-false. Due to point #1, the good people of Edgemont will tar & feather Bernstein & Co. at the Village square located at the new Edgemont Town Hall at Dromore.

Anon at 11:25 am said...

Dear Anon at 11:17

I hope that you are right.

But why wait any longer before tarring and feathering Bernstein. He has done enough damage already. Do it now!

Anonymous said...

I really believe that Edgemont will never become its own Village. At least not in my lifetime (and I'm not that old!)

I wish this drivel would go away. I takes up far too much time & energy, energy that should be used for town wide good and improvement.

Too bad that Edgemont hides behind it's school issues to try to achieve it's segrigration. If it's really school space issues they have, becoming a Village doesn't solve the problem as it has been pointed out many times here and otherwise. If this was the #1 concern, Bernstein should have played 3 card monte on Dromore for school district expansion, no?

It's all so thinly veiled I can't believe people spend so much time addressing Edgemont "woe is ONLY us!" issues, sidewalks, parks, taxes, garbage, FEINER!.......it's very boring.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

hal samis said...

Dear 10:47,

Thanks for your response but why does information have to become propoganda?

There is enough to discuss in just what I assume to be accurate information -- I'm sure "data not drama" will weigh in to notarize.

What I was seeking was the confirmation that ANY OR ALL property in the new Village could be reassessed. And, presumably, if it were done unfairly, the new Village and its officials might spend all of its revenues fighting law suits.

There are first some corrections to be made.

"it's possible some business owners might choose to leave"

Good riddance then to some office and retail tenants. However, when they go they won't be rolling up the land and/or the improvements (the buildings) and taking it with them. It is what is left behind and now vacant which pays the taxes. And when buildings are vacant, then the owner starts proceedings to have the taxes lowered. Why would the tenants leave, especially with all those Edgemont swells living nearby? Because most commercial leases contain tax increase protection for the owner and this protection takes the form of "as additional rent". If taxes rise, the owner passes this increase onto the tenant generally by the percentage of their building occupancy. Thus, the rent could go up substantially following reassessment which might be sufficient to cause them to close or not renew. If they stay, then they are likely to raise prices to cover their costs. Or they will pack up and go to Ridge Hill, leaving vacant buildings behind for re-assessment. Prospective tenants for this vacant space would meet the higher taxes in the form of higher asking rents. I could discuss the business and economic cycle ad nauseum. However no commercial user has to be located within Edgemont to service Edgemont. Yonkers and the remaining Unincorporated border Edgemont as does Scarsdale. The reality is that all that is being discussed as Edgemont commercial is a two mile strip of Central Avenue.

It is typical of the "elitist" Edgemont voice to assume that anyone wants to pay a premium to be near the Edgemont household.
First off there are very few Edgemont residents. Second, to have close access, does not mean that they have to be located in Edgemont, itself a limited land mass. And where is this "sought after" Edgemont buying power going if there were suddenly just open space replacing the buildings along its portion of the Central Avenue corridor? Maybe the Edgemont Village will become the saving grace for Hartsdale Center.

So now that Edgemont controls its land use, what does it do with vacant buildings now paying lower taxes than before (assuming certiorari). Presumably the first thing that the Edgemont Village did upon birth was to write their zoning code to prevent residential development. So as the cost of sanitation and police departments increased (their own or those that services were purchased from) because of salary increases etc., how does Edgemont expect to pay for this. Why from increasing what's leftof the tax base, the taxes on the existing homes, thus causing everyone's taxes to rise. In this vicious cycle, the house resale value becomes negatively impacted from higher property taxes. And after this message sinks in, then Edgemont will be trapped between the r.a.t.h.p. and will either have to lower the assessments on commercial to keep rents low or equal to adjacent areas or to reverse itself and allow new residential construction.

And while all this is going on, the owners of the commercial property will not be taking this lightly either. They are quite capable of seeing the handwriting on the wall and speaking to residents and their officials.

Edgemont "leaders" do not make a Village just because a few individuals say it should be one. First it has to get to the referendum and then it has to win the referendum. The assumption here being that everyone is anxious to have the matter voted upon. Perhaps facing a neighbor when confronted with a petition is unnerving but the privacy of the voting booth is a different matter.

Continuing along the poster's menu.
Feiner has one vote, this vote does not overturn a vote from the entire Town Board. So, if the thousands of dollars nonsense were true (like the Public got their share of it before they spoke on the matter at Public Hearings, that the Planning Board got their share of it before they met) then the other members of the Town Board either were in on the loot or they saw their independent and un-bought votes as the right thing to do.

And before these residential projects were built, the taxes on the parcels were what in $$ versus what they are in $$ following development.

Of course, there are now more people and there are more students.
And this brings higher costs to provide them with services. And it was just as true when everyone who now lives in Edgemont bought homes which were brand new once upon a time.

So now we get to the real issue and it has nothing, surprise, to do with Feiner. It is (by law as the poster wrote but not explaining that it was >>>) STATE LAW (those corrupt politicians) which determines the assessments on multi-family dwellings. But other than calling them corrupt there are explanations for the seeming disparity in how the properties are assessed. Most obvious is comparing what the entire development brings in taxes versus what a similar size piece of land with single family homes brings in taxes. Thus what would the tax revenue be from 37 units bring to the taxing authorities versus the tax revenue from 2.4 acres on nearby Old Army Road. If we discover that there is more money coming in from 37 units than, say 10 homes, then maybe the land is being used inefficiently. Perhaps if you want to be a land baron and not live in the closest proximity to your neighbor, then perhaps you should pay more. If you don't want to live on a busy commercial road and have views and smells of trucks, buses and traffic but choose instead to live on a quiet, side street, then perhaps you should pay more in taxes. In you want to sit out on your lawn instead of an asphalt parking lot, then perhaps you should pay more in taxes. If you want to have a spot to have your own swimming pool, then perhaps you should pay more in taxes. The point is that there is nothing common between multi-family development and single family development other than both housing classes are occupied by humans, although the single family home also allows pets without restriction.

If you can afford a single family home and this includes the upkeep and the taxes, then you should be prepared to pay more. And no one stops any single family home owner from selling his "tax lemon" and replacing it with the "tax haven" of a multi-family project since it is such a good deal.

If you want the Beamer versus the Chevy, it is "fair" that one costs more.

Enough of this elitist crap. Edgemont leaders bring on their own public relations disasters and still haven't learned when to shut up.

And I'm delighted to shovel their manure right back at their front door.

feiner means higher school taxes said...

Stone Ridge Manor was good for Feiner -- he made $10,000 off the developer -- but very bad for Edgemont. It forced Edgemont homeowners to pay higher taxes.

Control over land use therefore means control over the tax base. It means taking it out of the hands of corrupt politicians like Feiner who never told anyone about the $10,000.

It means taking the decisionmaking out of the hands of people who don't live in Edgemont and putting it in the hands of the people who do.

It means that if Edgemont's leaders make bad land use decisions, Edgemont residents can vote them out of office -- something they can't very well do now when it comes to Greenburgh's leaders.

Edgemont will become a village when a majority of its residents realize that it makes sense economically to do so. Other municipalities in Westchester are able to deal with controversial land use decisions sensibly, fairly and without corruption. Once Edgemont becomes its own municipality, it should be able to enjoy the same benefits that these other municipalities enjoy.

sick to death of the nonsense said...

1:35pm "but very bad for Edgemont. It forced Edgemont homeowners to pay higher taxes. "

What if a neighbor of your decides to built a 1800 sq ft house on his 1/2 acre instead of a 4000 sq. ft house. Will you complain about having to pay higher taxes to support his smaller dwelling hence less taxes.? You might! Are you dumb? I just can't get my arms around this ridiculous defense.

Do you complain when your national or state taxes support those in need? Do you complain when you pay SS tax knowing that you might never reap the benefits of a SS check some day? Do you complain to Mercedes when you buy your car because I paid less taxes to buy my Honda? Do you complain about paying $.05 on your coke can deposit knowing that some person might find it in your trash and collect on it?

Stop HIDING behind this crazy nonsense. How stupid do you think the bloggers here are?

Run for office or vote those you don't care for out. These outrageous complaints appear exactly what they appear to be. A cover hoping that some idiot actually believes you have been unjustly persecuted so that you can exist morally bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

I ask the person who wrote at 2:02 as Sick to death at this Nonsense to write more often.

I read the Supervisor's blog to get information. Instead I am bombarded with people who are greedy and selfish and who try to hide behind their absolutely irrational hatred and accusations against the Supervisor. The 2:02 writer has it exactly right.

We are a town, not individual areas, or individual streets. I am sure that those who complain all the time are quite well off and won't want for anything. Yet all we hear from them is how badly they are treated, how unfair life is for them in Greenburgh. It is so pathetic.

So, Sick to Death..., please comment more often, and others who have good sense please comment also.

sick to death of the nonsense said...

Thanks 2:59. This crazy whining is driving me nuts.

Samis 12:49:

I just read your post. Seems like we are on the same page here. Kudos!

hal samis said...

Dearest 1:35 (as in mommie dearest, get out the coat hangers).

Are you now accusing the Town Board of corruption. You say Feiner took money to ease Stone Brook Manor's "right of paasage" and this wasn't rite? That they weren't entitled to a zoning change? Even Eddie Mae Barnes who lives across the street? Even Steve Bass who lives down the road?
Look ma, 3 votes Feiner, Bass and Barnes. The vote was so obviously wrong and you say that Feiner got money? If that were true, at least that was a reason but while I've got you on the phone, why would Bass and Barnes go along?
Be tough for any Edgemont resident to vote for them this Fall, either they shared in the money or they're just stupid if you are ride.

Not that there's anything wrong with being stupid. Plenty of the people posting as anonymous would feel write at home with Bass and Barnes and the remainder of the Town Board that voted in favor.

So that's why I have used the inappropriate version of the word; just so that you would feel riot home.

But you did say something that even I can't argue with: "Edgemont
will become a village when a majority of its residents realize that it makes sense economically to do so".

That means that Edgemont will remain part of unincorporated forever.

feiner was bought said...

Samis, at age 62, is apparently old enough to lie like a Republican.

Bass can't be blamed for the Stone Ridge Manor vote was because, as Samis well knows, the vote took place before Bass became a member of the board. Barnes might be faulted because she was on the board at the time but, as Samis well knows, Feiner never disclosed to Barnes or anyone else that he had taken any money under the table, let alone that he had taken nearly $10,000!!!

Stone Ridge Manor needed a zoning change to get built. Edgemont leaders knew that unless scaled back, its construction would lead to higher school taxes. Politicians like Feiner could have helped create a reasonable compromise. But Feiner got bought for $10,000!!!

This is not about Edgemont; this is about corruption and it's high time Greenburgh rid itself of corrupt officials like Feiner.

Anonymous said...

Many leaders of Edgemont were in favor of Stone Brook Manor. Feiner voted yes. So did members of the Planning Board. Francis Sheehan was on the Zoning Board at that time. He didn't object?
Edgemont voters won't support incorporation of Edgemont because they know it will mean significant tax hikes.

Anonymous said...

Many leaders of Edgemont were in favor of Stone Brook Manor. Feiner voted yes. So did members of the Planning Board. Francis Sheehan was on the Zoning Board at that time. He didn't object?
Edgemont voters won't support incorporation of Edgemont because they know it will mean significant tax hikes.

hal samis said...

Being 62, I accept my mistake in assuming Bass was on the Town Council at that time. However I did not "well know" nor was I paying attention or even caring about Stone Ridge Manor when it was occurring, I don't even know what year this was. My interest is only about how Feiner could "ram" (as has been posted on the blog) a zoning change which Edgemont would have opposed and there were multiple opportunities throughout the process for Edgemont to register this opposition.

With Edgemont leaders so strongly opposed to this development, then how could anyone with one vote on the Town Board control the Town Board much less the Planning Board.

The record is wearing out (those of us 62 or older remember records) from repeated playing. If Feiner got money for his vote, how did that money influence the vote of the other Town Board members. Call me naive but I would think that their votes would be the result of their own opinions formed from the facts and the recommendations of the the Planning Department and the Planning Board with the Zoning Board thrown in for good measure.

If I accepted the argument that even after the review by the Town Planning Department, that even after the Planning Board Public Hearings, that a "contribution" could be made that might influence Feiner, as one of those voting, to vote for the zoning change it would be on the radar screen. Isn't that such a circumstance that nurtures the "appearance of impropriety" argument. And the punishment then and now is to go to the Ethics Board or the District Attorney. The punishment for Feiner is not to vote against the zoning change But if the other four members of the Town Board had not received similar gifts, then it would be difficult to establish that they voted for any other reason than they thought that their yea or nay was the correct and proper vote. Whether the Supervisor's vote was tainted would be irrelevant to their own decisions which are to be made from their evaluation of the the zoning issues, not the weather outside, not the pattern on the developer's tie and not upon factors which might influence the Supervisor's one vote.

Of course this is the difficulty is responding to an allegation with no correct answer but the bottom line is that Feiner could not make the Town Board do what they thought would be wrong. And I don't think that any case has been made to prove that the contribution (I'm only assuming that such contribution(s)) were made and that there is a basis to say that they were relevant to the zoning matter being bandied about.

What does taking money under the table mean? It sounds like something very sneaky is going on.
It implies that Feiner did not report the suspect contribution. Is this more anonymous persecution or was the contribution accepted over the table and reported following guidelines for campaign contributions. What makes me so doubtful of the big picture is when the details are being manipulated for effect. Using tennis as the structure, if the first service ($10,000) is the ace, why does the server need a second ball. It is only when the ball is close to the line and doubt exists that the first service does not stand unquestioned. Thus when the server needs not just one but now two extra serves to make the point, it assumes an air that perhaps there was something missing and that the first shot was neither an ace nor delivered during the game.
Never knowing when to shut up defeats the concept of "advantage in".

Because Edgemont wanted something, the project to be downsized, then anything that did not grant them this concession is suspect. But instead of being so lazy then and now later in posting picking, it is time for Edgemont to offer a clearer answer for why they did not get their way. If anything reported is even near the truth, all it explains is how one vote was bought, what about the other four? And how did the independent Planning Board (was the independent ZBA at all involved) not establish conditions that precluded this zoning change if it war unwarranted.

The only thing about this topic that makes sense is that it is about attacking Feiner, not about why the zoning changed. The anonymous poster is trying to take a subject which might garner sympathy from Edgemont residents (all but Eddie May Barnes) and use it as the attack platform. What Feiner did or did not do, what Feiner could or could not do, what Feiner should or should not do -- all of these aspects are irrelevant to the premise which does not appear anywhere in the post: "I don't like Feiner and I want him not to be re-elected." That is the message that Bernstein is sending to his troops and they try so hard to earn his favor. In turn Bernstein does not say, I don't care what you say, how you say it, just as long as it is the truth.

It is a two way street. If Feiner was selling out Edgemont for $10,000, then Bernstein is following right behind by selling out both the Nature Center and the Town in jockeying around his right to buy for a bargain price, the parcel on Dromore Road.
The reward for this similar treachery would be much, much more than $10,000. Unless Mr. Bernstein has some new documents, the draft of the purchase agreement was not authorized by the Town, Bernstein was not the Town's authorized Agent and as a private citizen arranging a private transaction on his own behalf (or for his associates and/or investors) the language of the documents works only for this purpose. Bernstein puts up the money, the terms regarding the 20% entitlement for the Developer are no longer applicable, while unenforceable by Bernstein were the money not to be paid; thus useful for only one purpose -- to whitewash Bernstein's role if he got found out as the purchaser.

It is about high time that Edgemont rid themselves of Bernstein as their "spokesperson".
Look at it this way: would you buy a used car from him?

It is also high time that Ms. McNally look at her association with Bernstein. It is admittedly a charged analogy but when the trials were held at Nuremberg, the answer that "I was just following orders" did not fall upon sympathetic ears. It is time to return to the perhaps downside for Edgemont but at least the side that will allow you to stop fighting your conscience. I'm sure that you didn't start off seeing where the dirty tricks and lies were headed but it is time that you recognize what your friends have since pointed out: that Bernstein is now fighting for Bernstein, not for Edgemont.
Get off the train before it crashes.

Anonymous said...

Hal, you are on to something. On the Greenburgh Democracy Thread Jim Lasser could not come up with any evidence from either the Edgemont Community Council or the Greenridge Civic Association that Bernstein was charged with the mission of acquiring the Dromore Road Property. Since the Civic Associations did not tell him to do this, he must have been operating as an individual acting in association with McNally, Sheehan, Bass, Barnes and Juetner. Now the question is...why would the Town Council act with private citizens operating without any community mandate to acquire this property in the manner that they intended. Oh yes...lets not forget that they circumvented New York States Open Meetings Laws along the way.

Greenburgh Historian said...

Dear Anonymous at 2:02 and Friends -
You find nothing wrong with spreading the cost of the Supervisor and (to satisfy Samis) Town Board's delivery of "quality of life" programs among the rich to benefit the poor. I accept that.
You really should sign onto Bernstein's Taxter Ridge and subsequent law suits against the Town because that's EXACTLY what Bernstein is doing. He wants everyone, including the Villages, to pay for what everyone can use.
Stop blasting Bernstein and blindly following the Pauliburo line. You want equality and fairness, support the lawsuits initiate by Bernstein.

sick & tired said...

Dear anon 9:48,

Your comments are the type that I refer to as being completely crazy as they make no sense what so ever. Go back & re-read what you wrote.

"You find nothing wrong with spreading the cost of the Supervisor and (to satisfy Samis) Town Board's delivery of "quality of life" programs among the rich to benefit the poor. I accept that"

Quality of life programs sponsored by the rich to benefit the poor??? WTH? What planet are you on? These "programs" paid for by all residents, may appear to only benefit the poor of Greenburgh as the rich of Greenburgh (Edgemont) would choose death as an option rather than partake in these programs alongside the "poor".

"You really should sign onto Bernstein's Taxter Ridge and subsequent law suits against the Town because that's EXACTLY what Bernstein is doing. He wants everyone, including the Villages, to pay for what everyone can use.
Stop blasting Bernstein and blindly following the Pauliburo line. You want equality and fairness, support the lawsuits initiate by Bernstein."

This is too funny! You make the above statement and now this? So what's your point? If Berstein wants everyone to be included why does Edgemont (Bernstein & company & possibly YOU) complain about not having "special" parks for your own use. Why does Edgemont have it's own recreation? Yeah, Bernstein really gives a hoot that the Villages aren't paying for Taxter Ridge. He only cares that he/Edgemont is paying for it. He wouldn't step one foot in that park even if the Villages paid their share. Hell! It's not in Edgemont! Do you really think that I believe that Bersteins lawsuits or anything else he's involved in isn't self serving? Edgemont wants to pay for only what Edgemont can use and I mean ONLY Edgemont.

Crazy.

Anonymous said...

Questions for Greenburgh Historiab.

Do you think that residents of Rockland County, NYC, Connecticut, etc. should be taxed for Taxter Ridge? After all, they have the right to use Taxter Ridge.

Do you think that you and I and the rest of Greenburgh residents should be taxed for the operation of Central Park, the Botanical Gerdens and other NYC parks and recreation places? After all, we have the right to use them?

There are other questions, but let's start with those.

get your facts straight on parks said...

state money was used for taxter ridge - thats why all state residents can use it. what a joke - there is no place to park and no one knows where it is

as for ny botanical - here are the admission charges for grounds and parking

Grounds-Only Admission
All Dates

Can only be purchased on site.

Adults: $6
Adult Bronx Residents: $5
Seniors: $3
Students (with valid ID): $2
Children (2–12 years): $1
Children under 2: Free

Grounds admission is free to everyone all day on Wednesdays and from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Saturdays.

This does NOT include admission to the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory, Everett Children’s Adventure Garden, Rock and Native Plant Gardens (April–October), or Tram Tour.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARKING

On-site parking:
$10 per vehicle

.

Anonymous said...

Sure there is an admission fee to the Botanical Gerdens. There is also an admission fee to the Greenburgh parks, by way of an annual card, which the Town Board has opened up to all of Greenburgh in violation of the Finneran Law which requires Greenburgh's parks to be restricted to residents of unincorporated Greenburgh.

You operate from the basis that what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine.

more straight talk on parks said...

2:57 pm
huh?

no admission card is needed for either taxter ridge or hart's brook.

if you have the right to use a park facility, should you have the obligation to pay for it too?

village residents cannot use veteran park (except for a few volunteers as permitted by the owner of the park, the town of greenburgh) - its restricted in use.

there is no free lunch (a fact feiner and his fellow travelers are discovering).

Anonymous said...

Here is some straight talk.

You ask "if you have the right to use a park facility, should you have the obligation to pay for it too?"

Have you been taxed for your visits to Central Park? To Prospect Park? To the Bronx Zoo? Everybody has the right to use them, and there is no admission either.

Should you be taxed for them? If your answer is "yes" then I'll think that you are nuts but I will respect your consistency. If your answer is "no" then please shut up.

bronx zoo - not free at all said...

here is what it costs to visit the bronx zoo:


Limited Admission Tickets*

Adult $14.00
Child (Ages 3-12) $10.00
Senior (65 +) $12.00
Children 2 years and under are always free!

Anonymous said...

OK, I'm wrong about the Bronx Zoo. I don't go there. But by finding error with the Bronx Zoo example, you avoid answering the Central Park and Prospect Park examples. If I lived in the city I can surely find more examples. So I ask again, should you be taxed for Central Park and Prospect park maintenance because you have the right to use them, whether ot not you do use them? because that is the core of the dispute in Greenburgh.

If there were a charge for Taxter Ridge (so that it resembles the Bronx Zoo example) would you then agree that non-residents of the unincoeporated area should not be taxed? I doubt it because there is absolutely no consistency in your arguments.

Now you may say that it is different here because villages are part of the town. And this was true until the Finneran Law was passed. It is not true now, no matter how hard Bernstein blows smoke. Wait for the court decision.

It is plain that you really operate on the theory of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine. That's the Bernstein legacy and it has made Greenburgh into an ugly place.

central park - get real said...

to compare central park to any park in greenburgh is beyond absurd. central park is funded by millions of dollars of public and private moneys plus revenue from concessions and all sorts of other uses (films etc). half of central park's budget is provided by the private central park conservancy.
over the years central park has received federal and state funds/grants and continues to do so. so, if you file a tax return and pay nys and federal taxes, you are paying for central park. central park is essentially a world landmark and is the most visited park in the entire united states.

taxter park case explained said...

the lawsuit is rather simple. because a park like taxter ridge must be open to all residents of the town, the county and the state, is it fair (or legal) to tax only the residents of the unincorporated portion of the town for the town's portion of the debt service and maintenance of the park? so far the courts have said this is illegal. neither the villages nor the town have been able to articulate any logical reason for the tax discrimination engaged in by the town. again, if the park is unrestricted in use, why should the taxes be restricted to only unincorporated greenburgh. rememember- this is not a neighborhood park - its a 200 acre parcel intended for use by everyone. the finneran law only applies to parks restricted in use such as veteran park.

Anonymous said...

To Taxter Park Case Explained, I have a suggestion. Read the text of the Finneran Law, not Bernstein's view of the Finneran Law.

bernstein is right about the parks said...

Just read that Finneran law and then read a copy of Bernstein's latest brief.

Finneran says that the town must charge unincorporated only for parks restricted to their use. It doesn't say anything about parks open townwide.

Bernstein says that if the Finneran law were applied to Taxter Ridge, the town would be violating state laws that require parks open townwide to be paid for townwide, as well as state laws that say the town isn't allowed to charge only a portion of the the town for the costs of borrowing money to buy parks unless the state says so, and Finneran nowhere authorizes the town to borrow any money for parks.

I wondered how the town and the villages could justify their reading of a law which, if applied to parks and recreational facilities that are open townwide, is so obviously discriminatory against the unincorporated area.
It struck me that the town and villages were being downright racist in their insisting that the villages should not have to pay their fair share of the costs of town recreational programs that serve the town's low income and minority populations.

But when I read what the town and villages had to say, I saw nothing to justify their position. The best they could muster was some incoherent mush about discrimination like this happens all the time, get over it.

These legal briefs should be required reading for every Greenburgh resident. They are quite an eye-opener.

Anonymous said...

Bernstein says, Bernstein says, Bernstein says...

I'm sure that if all the briefs were read they would show that Anon 9:07 is a fool for believeing what Bernstein says.

Greenburgh Historian said...

To Anonymous at 10:44AM on 8-20:
Do I think residents of Rockland County, Connecticut and elsewhere should be taxed for Taxter Ridge? The answer is that they have already been taxed. The use of NY State and Federal "grants" means that tax dollars have been used. While some politicos would like you to believe that someone else is footing the bill ("Taxter Ridge was acquired using State and Federal money...")- that someone is frequently YOU!
They are taxed, that's fair, and they should have the right to use the facility.
The real question should be asked, "Is it fair to tax unincorporated Greenburgh residents three times for the facility?" Those three times are Town Outside property taxes, NY State Income Tax and Federal Income Tax - because anyone paying Town Outside propterty taxes is virtually certain to be paying the other two...

no room for tax discrimination said...

and the corollary - is it fair to only tax unincorporated only when everyone in the town can use taxter ridge? its a town park. everyone should pay.

hal samis said...

What makes people so certain that Central Park is inviolate?

There already are "invasion" plans being discussed by some of the big developers. The red light does come not from the municipal authorities who would welcome the proffered very large sums of money earmarked toward addressing City problems. The opposition will come from the wealthy and connected apartment owners along Fifth Avenue and Central Park West while those without park views will have to make do by fleeing to their weekend homes.

I would wager that among the eight largest residential developers in the City, at least five have plans and renderings already completed in advanced stages.

However, these secrets pale in comparison to Bernstein's hidden agenda for Dromore. Which, may I remind you, need only remain one-family zoning under the zoning of the Town of Greenburgh -- not what may be allowed under the zoning of say, the Village of Edgemont.

100,000 developable feet. 30,000 "free" feet for Edgemont Village Hall, the ECC and the Ant Farms of the Nature Center. 70,000 feet of rentable space for the Bernstein group. 70,000 feet that pays local taxes and produces no student bodies.

A good deal for all, a very, very good deal for some. Why would anyone object? But shssh! It's a secret.

Just joking, if Bob can tell jokes, why can't I.

Anonymous said...

As Feiner always says, "Millions for park land, but not a penny for maintenance."

hal samis said...

And isn't it a pity that Bass and Barnes and Juettner and Sheehan go along with this. But what would Berger do? Anyone have a clue? Or is it just another sweet mystery of life, a lass who hasn't found a clue.

Anonymous said...

The people who express their comments on the blogs seem to forget that Feiner cannot make decisions alone.The whole town council has to vote for or against. Why is it that all the blame is thrown Feiner's way.

Greenburgh Historian said...

And many of the commentators on this blog forget that prior to the last election, Mr. Feiner chose and financed the campaigns of the other Board members. On pain of loss of campaign funding, no one EVER voted against the Supervisor.
It was considered extremely uppity to even ask a question. (Go look at all the old broadcasts - do you hear anything that even sounds like a Board member questions the all encompassing wisdom of the Supervisor?)
Now all anyone seems to want is a return to the glorious days of yesteryear - the hearty cry of "ugh, umm, errr, ahh" from the center chair. Bring back the Paulitburo - harmony and consensus without questions.

Anonymous said...

The only one who is having a ball with campaign contributions is a so called lawyer Bernstein .Since he has the four council members in his hip pocket, he feels that he should hash out what monies were received by Feiner in past years.
Sheehan is laughing right now but remember what goes arround comes arround.
Was this so called lawyer Bernstein ,present when all this monies was given to FEiner. He seems to forget that Feiner is not the only person voting for development .What he is saying that the planning board and zoning board are on the take.
Speaking of the board what about the council members they too voted for development.
For Bernstein, the only person who voted was Feiner.The respective boards had nothing to do with the outcome.
When it came to Dromore Rd. Bernstein made it his business to have Sheehan change the zoning map.
The orders for this change was definitly initiated by Sheehan,
This was an illegal move on Bernsteins part,and Sheehan's.
Now Berstein is trying to make Feiner into a crook.
Bernstein who is the crook,with the assistance of town board councils,look in the mirror and you will get your answer.
I do hope that someone takes the next step in suing the ass off of you.
Just remember you can't be seeling pencils on Sheehan's corner.