Monday, November 26, 2007

TENNIS COURT BUBBLE TO BE VOTED ON WED--TO GENERATE $192,500 IN YEAR ONE...2 MILLION IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT NO COST TO TAXPAYERS

I am pleased that the Greenburgh Town Board will be voting on the following resolution at the meeting of the Town Board on Wednesday night. The town will receive $192,500 IN THE FIRST YEAR (RENT)...AND 2 MILLION DOLLARS IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS to enhance the tennis courts. The following resolution will be voted on Wednesday night.
PAUL FEINER
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURGH TO ENTER INTO
AN AGREEMENT WITH ISLAND TENNIS, L.P. D/B/A SPORTIME TO LICENSE TENNIS FACILITIES LOCATED AT ANTHONY F. VETERAN PARK

WHEREAS, the Town of Greenburgh is the owner of a certain parcel of land in Town known as Anthony F. Veteran Park; and

WHEREAS, the Town wishes to license a portion of Anthony F. Veteran Park for the construction and operation of additional tennis facilities to serve residents of the Town of Greenburgh and others; and

WHEREAS, Island Tennis, L.P. d/b/a Sportime has responded to the Town’s requests for proposals to construct and operate such additional tennis facilities at Anthony F. Veteran Park, which the Town Board finds to be a proposal which will best serve the needs of the Town; and

WHEREAS, the Town seeks to enter into a License Agreement with Sportime which shall become effective upon full execution by the parties and shall commence on the first day Licensee opens for business which shall be after the issuance of certificates of completion for construction of the facilities and shall terminate on August 31st of the fifteenth year (15 years) after the Commencement Date; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to this License Agreement, Licensee shall be required to pay to the Town of Greenburgh a “Minimum Guaranteed Annual License Fee” for each License Year of the Agreement until Cumulative Gross Sales of Sportime, as defined in the License Agreement, equal $35,000,000; and

WHEREAS, the Minimum Guaranteed Annual License Fee beginning in Year One of the License Agreement and subsequent years is as follows:

Year 1-$192,500.00; Year 2-$195,000.00; Year 3-$197,500.00; Year 4-$200,000.00;
Year5-$205,000.00; Year 6-$207,500.00; Year 7-$210,000.00; Year 8-$212,500.00;
Year 9-$215,000.00; Year 10 $217,500.00; Year 11-$220,000.00; Year 12-
$222,500.00; Year 13-$225,000.00; Year 14-$227,500.00 and Year 15-$230,000.00; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to this License Agreement, the Licensee shall pay the above Minimum Guaranteed Annual License Fees in twelve (12) equal monthly installments, payable on the first day of each month of the License Year however, if during the Term of this Agreement, the Cumulative Gross Sales of License exceed $35,000,000, then the License Fees for that License Year shall be equal to ten (10%) percent of Annual Gross Sales, but in no event less than the above Minimum Guaranteed Annual License Fees; and

WHEREAS, any revenues or expenses generated as a result of the License Agreement between the Town and the Licensee shall be credited to the town outside the villages or “B” fund unless the Town is directed otherwise by Court Order; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the License Agreement, the Licensee shall initially make a capital investment provide of no less than two million ($2,000,000) dollars and maintain after construction, at its sole cost and expense, the following minimum improvements:

(A) Construct, renovate and/or expand a total of nine (9) tennis courts as follows: reconstruct four (4) existing hard tennis courts (presently known as courts 9,10,12, and 13) and finish surface with a Deco-Turf product; reconstruct and enlarge a fifth (5th) existing hard tennis court (presently known as court 11) and finish to match above courts; replace two (2) existing hard tennis courts (presently known as courts 7 and 8) with newly constructed soft “har-tru” surface courts; construct two (2) new soft “har-tru” surface courts to match above for bank of four (4) “har-tru” courts. Above court improvements will include all necessary infrastructure, foundations, utilities, drainage, irrigation, fencing, and indoor and outdoor lighting. Two (2) new air structure enclosures (commonly known as “tennis bubbles”) will be custom manufactured and will be installed annually by Licensee to enclose the nine (9) courts specified above. The above Improvements, in their entirety, shall provide, when air enclosures are installed and inflated, a complete and usable indoor facility as depicted on the site plan in Schedule “A”, which facility will also be fully usable during the outdoor season, with air structures removed.

(B) Construct a 2,400 square foot clubhouse which will consist of a Lobby, Public Space, Nursery, Men’s & Women’s locker room facilities, Pro Shop, Offices, and Vestibule; and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the Town may terminate this License
Agreement if the proposed additional tennis facilities have not been completed and/or are not in operation within twelve (12) months from the issuance of building permits for construction of the tennis facilities;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh hereby authorizes the Supervisor to enter into a license agreement with ISLAND TENNIS, L.P. d/b/a SPORTIME to construct and operate additional tennis facilities at ANTHONY F. VETERAN PARK for the Minimum Guaranteed Annual License Fees outlined below:

Year 1-$192,500.00; Year 2-$195,000.00; Year 3-$197,500.00; Year 4-$200,000.00;
Year5-$205,000.00; Year 6-$207,500.00; Year 7-$210,000.00; Year 8-$212,500.00;
Year 9-$215,000.00; Year 10 $217,500.00; Year 11-$220,000.00; Year 12-
$222,500.00; Year 13-$225,000.00; Year 14-$227,500.00 and Year 15-$230,000.00

Submitted: November 25, 2007

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

...

Anonymous said...

1. Will the funds go to the B budget?

2. If at Veterans, will only TOV people be allowed to use??

Anonymous said...

Excellent. Sounds like there will still be open public tennis courts year round. The potential percentage of additional revenue is also very good.

Anonymous said...

Open to whom???

Anonymous said...

What does sportime get from this? Why are they so interested?

Anonymous said...

Presumably they will be charging fees. The question is -- who will be allowed to use? Presumably up to Sportstime?

be happy said...

Just so those people who say don't let anyone into Veteran Park know the whole story.

Sporttime will only do this if they can have customers from all over, not only Greenburgh but all of Westchester and even Rockland if they want to come. It has to make economic sense before they invest millions of dollars, and it doesn't make economic sense if only unincorporated area residents can use it.

Sporttime will charge fees to the tennis players who use the bubble, just like any other tennis entrepreneur. They are leasing it for that purpose. They expect to make money from operating the bubble in the indoor season.

It will be a profit-making deal for the town. They get a large rent and Sporttime will build modern facilities, including a clubhouse, which will belong to the town.

The revenue and expenses associated with the bubble will be in the B fund because that is what the Finneran Law requires. If the court throws out the Finneran law in the Taxter Ridge appeal, which is a possibility, then the revenues and expenses will be moved to the A fund. If the court upholds the Finneran Law then the revenues and expenses will remain in the B fund.

It is a big win for the unincorporated area. Sit back and enjoy it.

Anonymous said...

will the bubbles be up all year - or just during the winter, as originally proposed?

Anonymous said...

NO be happy,

This agreeement allows the following: Court to say all rev and expense for parks and rec except the orignal veterans in A budget, Feiner to say he will fight, but in mean time he will put expesnes in B and revenue in A. He has already said he will fight this to the supreme court if he had to.

Anonymous said...

Paul, can you post the entire proppsed contrac ton t he town web

Anonymous said...

Feiner is misleading the public when he says there is no cost to the public.

The Sportime proposal is based on the assumption that the Town can legally make the tennis courts available to persons other than residents of the town's unincorporated areas.

However, the Town and the villages have both taken the position in court that the Finneran law "mandates" that use of recreational facilities in town be limited exclusively to residents of the unincorporated areas.

Bernstein has taken the opposite position.

If Sportime enters into this agreement with the town, it will be spending upwards of $2 million to upgrade the town's tennis facilities, which is a good thing.

But if the town and the villages were to prevail on their theory of Finneran -- that it prevents the town from allowing persons other than unincorporated area residents from using the facilitiy -- then Sporttime will demand its money back.

In other words, the town will have to indemnify Sportime against the risk tnat the town and/or the villages will prevail in their legal arguments against Bernstein.

That's some pickle Feiner has put us in. Can you imagine what the cost to the town will be in terms of taxes if it has to fork over to Sporttime all the money Sportime has invested in this venture?

Well that's exactly what might happen. And don't think it will be decided soon by the courts. If Bernstein prevails on Taxter, there's Bernstein II, where the same arguments will be made all over again. No matter which side prevails, the other side will almost certainly appeal. It looks like it will be years before these matters are finally resolved. But if they are resolved the way the town and the villages are insisting the courts rule, the town will be facing a huge obligation to indemnity Sportime.

What a shame town leaders still don't tell the public the true facts about these very important matters.

Anonymous said...

Feiner wont care if Sportstime sues. The contract says all expenes from B budget. He doesnt care about B budget.

Anonymous said...

The courts should be opened to ALL. Why would anyone invest money into a project like this and not see a profit.
Opening it to all will bring money for the town and the Sports company will also be happy.
In plain english the town of Greenburgh is in trouble and we need a ggod shot in the arm to help.

Anonymous said...

If laws have to be changed to bring in revenue go for it.
If this is handled properly it will be welcomed by all.

bubble deal exposes taxpayers to huge risk said...

Whether the tennis courts should be opened to all is not the issue. The issue is that the town and the villages have taken the position in court that it would be illegal under Finneran for the town to allow anyone other than residents of the town's unincorporated areas to use the town's recreational facilities.

Bernstein, by contrast, took the opposite position. He said the town had the discretion to open its parks and recreational facilities to persons other than residents of the unincorporated areas, provided, however, that the costs for such town-wide amenities were not charged exclusively to the unincorporated areas. The lower court agreed with Bernstein.

In the meantime, the town and villages argued on appeal that Finneran "mandates" that only unincorporated area residents may use town park and rec facilities and that it would be illegal for the town to allow otherwise.

If the courts were to adopt that position, Sporttime will demand its money back because its investment in Greenburgh is predicated on the assumption that tennis memberships can be offered without regard to residency.

And who can give that indemnity? Only the town can give that indemnity. Unincorporated Greenburgh is not a legal entity. Therefore, if Sporttime is entitled to be indemnified, the town as a whole must give that indemnity.

Of course, having run on a "villages first" platform, Feiner and his town board colleagues will almost certainly try to shift that cost to the unincorporated areas.

So, even though Feiner and his colleagues apparently won't own up to it, taxpayers facing this year's 24% tax hike shouldn't be fooled into thinking that this tennis bubble idea is some kind of risk-free panacea, because it's anything but.

I'm happy too said...

The 1:37 blogger and the 6:06 blogger seem to be the same person, and the writing style seems to be that of Bernstein. But if not Bernstein, then one of his clones. And the writer is more interested in pursuing an agenda than seeing the tennis bubble come to being.

He is right up to a point. If the court rules in favor of Bernstein's position then everything goes into the A budget. If the court rules in favor of the villages and the town, then the costs must remain in the B budget and Bernstein's argument is over, done with and finis. The Finneran law that says that the villages can't be taxed for a town recreation facility will have been upheld.

If that happens than the blogger is right, and the Finneran Law says that town facilities have to be restricted to unincorporated area residents. But it doesn't stop there. As long as it is determined that the villages can't be taxed for the tennis bubble, or any other town park or recreational facility, what is to stop the town from following the suggestion of the 5:57 blogger and ask for the laws to be changed so as to allow the town to let people use the tennis bubble. Who can possibly object, since it will benefit the unincorporated area by letting the B budget have revenues that it wouldn't otherwise have.

Oh yes, Bernstein and his groupies will object, because they aren't interested in the good of the town. They are interested only in making trouble. But the Town Board wil probably ignore them because it is bad policy to spite your face by cutting off your nose. They can't show any reason for not letting the town have the flexibility to let non-residents use the facilities and pay for that use, since it will not have any impact on the B budget.

Of course the court may uphold Bernstein's position, and then we don't have any trouble. Only the villages will have trouble.

Ed Krauss said...

First let me say I am a member of Sportime and play in the Island Harbor facility (bubble) in Mamaroneck. They run a first rate operation, a clean and well kept building and courts and would be a tremendous asset to our community.

Next let me allay any fears you may have of legal fees, or givebacks based on Sportime not being afforded the opportunity to sell memberships to anyone from anywhere.

As any good or even not so good businessman would do, Sportime would wait until all the legal dust settles- through lower court, appeals court a and the highest court in the state, bfore investng one penny into upgrading the corts at town park.

One this "Isreali-Palestinian" situation is settled once and for all Sportime will be a revenue enhancer with an upward trajectory.

Therefore the first hurdle may be to separate the tennis courts fro the rest of Anthony Veteran park, allow the villages to get summer memberships to play tennis, AND when a deal is cemented with Sportime, put the revenues derived into the A budget.

I know a lawyer or two could put a kabosh on my solution, but if Solomon were alive he would concur as I do with his solution to the two momies one child problem.

How about it, a source of revenue with no investment.

Anonymous said...

Those who think Finneran can be amended to allow the town to open its parks to all residents townwide, while continuing to charge the costs solely to the town's unincorporated area residents may be in for a rude awakening.

Even if the unincorporated area were to benefit from the tennis bubble deal, which may or may not be the case depending on whether the arrangement with the private vendor succeeds commercially, there is the issue of all the other parks and recreational facilities in Greenburgh which are open townwide but paid for solely by unincorporated area residents.

Before any attempt is made to amend Finneran, the courts will rule, and they may rule that such arrangement on the part of the town is unconstitutional. If that occurs, the legislature's hands will almost certainly be tied.

All of this could have been avoided, of course, had the parties agreed to settle their differences when they had the chance. But that unfortunately did not occur because the villages insisted as a condition of their participation in the mediation that the legal issues before the courts not be the subject of discussion.

The blogger at 6:55 engages in a lot of ad hominem attack on Bernstein. One would think that with the guy still laid up in the hospital that the anonymous pigs who continue to attack him would just take a moment to reflect on how disgusting their behavior is. But this being Feiner's blog, even Bernstein would know better than to think that.

Anonymous said...

The 7:50 blogger wants everybody to be kind to Bernstein because he is laid up in a hospital.

Enough of that. The town is dealing with the consequences of Bernstein's lawsuits, his attacks on everybody who didn't go along with him, and the destructive campaign he has unleashed for years. One cannot deal with that without mentioning where it comes from and who had done, and is still doing, the damage.

We can feel sorry for Bernstein, but we have to deal with what he has done. That didn't go away when he became sick.

If the court rules that Finneran is unconstitutional then all the parks go into the A budget. But if they rule that Finneran is constitutional then the costs must go into the B budger -- all the costs, tennis and the other parks and recreation facilities, and the second Bernstein lawsuit disappears. Then the town can choose either to restrict everything, or it can try to change the law, and it won't affect the A budget either way, but it will let the town have the recreational program that benefits the town.

I am sure that the Town Board is too smart to slit its own throat.

Anonymous said...

Dear 8:30,

The Town has historically attempted to bill Parks and Rec expenses to the B budget but allow the entire town access. They may just chose to continue that -- allowing entire town to use the new tennis courts, but charging any lawsuits to the B budget. And there will be another lawsuit. Feiner doesnt care.

hal samis said...

If the author of the suspect posts is actually Mr. Bernstein writing from rehab and he has elected to serve, then those on the other side of the net are not obligated to lob the ball right back at him because those who write on this blog are not here for a volley but to win the match.

If Bernstein or friends of Bernstein think he should get an automatic bye, they are wrong. Bob has indicated that he is capable of using his blackberry front and backhanded so introducing "take it easy on Bob" is something that I'm sure he neither needs nor would request. Even if the ball nicked the out of bounds line, I don't think he would ask for favors based upon illness. So, unless you or Bob want to throw in the towel, don't invoke Bernstein's name in vain, even if some postings might appear as written in the third person singular.

Anonymous said...

All this A/B budget and Finneran law stuff is so silly. Unincorporated Greenburgh should simply incorporate as its own city or incorporate as three villages. This antiquated setup was designed for large rural areas that had some cute little village areas scattered about. The system we opt to maintain clearly doesn't correspond to the current-day Greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

Grow up!

There is no Santa Claus -
everything comes with a price tag attached. It may well be a good deal, but it isn't without a cost.

If the Town and Villages are right that use of facilities charged in the "B" budget must be restricted to residents of unincorporated Greenburgh how will Sporttime ever be able to let anyone else use the facility?

If Bernstein is right then the only question is which column to enter the revenues in.

Looks like the Town has decided that Bernstein will win his lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

From the Journal News

Greenburgh residents would also receive a discount, Lefkowitz said, but a fee has not been determined.

Would this be TOV or all residents? If all, this is an unfair subsidy.

Anonymous said...

Are we ready to vote on this? The JN says indemnity still being worked on. This is scary.

Anonymous said...

Stop the nonsense! It's a great proposal! Pass it already! And thanks to Supervisor Feiner for a very creative plan!

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:38,

Will you indemnify if a problem in court? Paul personally? and this isnt his idea, it is sportimes.

Larry Lefkowitz said...

We don't yet know the fee schedule and the Licensee can't yet know it, because the facility won't open until next September at the earliest and maybe not until 2009.

Under their original proposal, Sporttime said monthly fees would have been $22 for adult non-residents of Greenburgh and $19 for residents (including village residents), if it would have been opened in 2005. That gives you an idea of the discount.

Anyone from the unincorporated area who sues because this facility is in the "B" budget would be seeking to raise taxes in that budget, because the operation will be revenue positive and potentially reduce taxes. The courts presently raise almost no revenue from Labor Day to Memorial Day, which is the indoor season.

I regret that I will be unable to attend the hearing on Wednesday, as I will be out of the country, but I urge the Town Board to approve the contract. The risk of Sporttime withdrawing because of the litigation is, in my opinion not significant enough to kill this golden goose. In addition, the first two lawsuits may well be resolved before construction begins and we will then all know in which budget this project belongs.

Finally, I think we should all cool it about Bernstein and wish him a speedy recovery.

Anonymous said...

Village residents should not get discount.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Lefkowitz,

How can you justify Village residents receiving the lower rate?

Thank you in advance for the kindliness of a reply.

Anonymous said...

If the Town does approve this (which absent being 100% comfortable with the indemnity, I dont see how they can be), it should be subject to a condition that resident rates be TOV residents only.

Anonymous said...

what is wrong with Mr. Bernstein?

Anonymous said...

I don't think that this should be voted on yet. It seems as if the town is leaving itself wide open to assuming Sportstimes expenses for construction if the lawsuit goes through. Remember Paul how the town suffered 2 years ago by being underinsured!!! You seem to get yourself in trouble when you rush into things. Also how about a little decorum on this website.

Anonymous said...

For 9 courts, for 1/2 the year, the $3 hour subsidy could work out to quite a bit of money. If the Town doesnt have a contrac that provides that resident discounts only go to TOV, then the A budget should reimburse the B budget for the discount provided to Village residents. This is just an indirect subsidy of what the Town cant do directly.

Anonymous said...

This is easy to fix. Contract must say no discounts to Village residents. Discount per person isnt that big a deal. Total could be huge. Potential legal problem. Cant we try to avoid?

Anonymous said...

Another alternative -- discounts only to Veteran Park members. Of course, this leaves the problem of giving discounts to teh Village residents who are allowed to join Veterans. But heah, that will probably end up in Bernstein III.

The crazies are at it again said...

It is really amazing and shocking that some residents have this obsessive rage at village residents. No matter what the issue, no matter how beneficial something may be for town, no matter how ridiculous the objections are, the only thing that matters to these people is screw the villages.

The discount is not the town's issue. The town doesn't set the fees. It is Sportstime's issue as to how much they want to charge. If they want to give a discount, and who they want to give a discount to, is for them to decide. In short, you and the town have nothing to say about it.

So, you nuts, go complain and kill the golden goose. You will have the great joy of having told the villages how much you hate them, even if you have to give up the tennis program.

Anonymous said...

I dont want to destroy anything. It is a simple matter for the town to define who is treated as a resident. If they chose not to, it is Pauls decision.

The crazies, etc. said...

To 8:40, you repeat your desire to thump the villages. but you are wrong,again.

Sportetime sets the fees. They will decide whom they deem residents for their fee schedule. They are not going to let the town run its business.

Get over your hostility. It is destructive in addition to being totally unjustified.

Anonymous said...

The Town has to agree to the contract. I suggest Paul consider that if he doesnt provide for definition of a resident, there will be another lawwuit. No one should have to say sue. this is only fair. Only unincorporated pays for Veterans. The intent of this agreement should be to reflect it. Mr. Lefkowitz, I would really like to hear from you. This should not be a big deal.

Anonymous said...

The discount is the Town's issue. Because it the Towns responsibility to see that there is a fair contract. If it is not fair, there could be repercussions. So the Town should try to have it fair. In fact, Sports time will set fees. But if there is going to be a resident discount it should not go to Village residents.

Anonymous said...

Any discount which is provided to Village residents, which the Town knew or should have known about, is potentially another illegal transfer from the B budget to the A. Mr. Rosenberg, I hope you are reading this, because, like Taxter Ridge, when this comes back to bite people, you should have the full background on it.

Anonymous said...

Someone better explain to Sportstime that before the complex goes into use that there will likely be a restraining order requiring them to have proof that every "resident" is a TOV resident, and that they are a party to a misappropriation of TOV assets by allowing preferential use by non-TOV residents. Does this sound like fraud?

True Conservative said...

Deaqr Mr. Rosenberg -
I am vigorously opposed to the "privatization" of public facilities. I believe strongly that if the community wants an amenity, it should be willing to step up and pay for it. "Privatization" and that is exactly what the Sporttime deal boils down to, is a cowardly and ultimately destructive approach to the primary reasons for the existence of a legitimate government. I hold that governments exist and derive their legitamacy solely from their efforts to provide those services which citizens cannot provide for themselves. When a private company can see the opportunity to make a profit and government cedes its responsibility to the private contractor, the government loses its legitimacy.
For a current, real world example of just how badly such policies can end, see the privatization of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the US government had fulfilled its legitimate role, Blackwater Security and others would never have come into existence - and without them, the American people would have had to face up to the reality of the war.

Anonymous said...

To 9:38, who says " Does this sound like fraud?"

No, it sounds like you are a nut.

Anonymous said...

It's dumb...dumb...dumb to complain about a proposal that will lower our taxes.
The town needs money.
GET IT?

Anonymous said...

The Village residents may recieve more in subsidies than the B budget in rent. Not Fair. Easy to fix. So, deliberatley unfair. All you people who complain, why not fix. Oh, you want subsidy.

Enough already said...

It is amazing what some angry but uninformed people say.

How do village residents get subsidies from the tennis bubble? They get none. They can pay for the privilege of playing tennis like anyone else.

If Sport Time charges village residents the same as they charge TOV residents, how is tnat a subsidy? It isn't. It is just that some people want TOV residents to have some advantages for no reason other than that they have advantages.

How are these "subsidies" more than the rent? Who is getting the rent? The A budget? No, the B budget, which reduces the TOV taxes, not the villages taxes.

The big question. Why have some TOV residents become so crazy-angry at the villages that they have to find some way to attack the villages, no matter what the issue and no matter how self-destructive it is to do so?

The answer, of course, is that it is the result of Bernstein's inflammatory accusations these past few years.

Don't you think it is time to stop, and consider what is helpful for the town instead of focusing on how to make things bad for the villages and the town?

Anonymous said...

Heah,

"If Sport Time charges village residents the same as they charge TOV residents, how is tnat a subsidy? It isn't. It is just that some people want TOV residents to have some advantages for no reason other than that they have advantages".


I am not Bernstein (he writes much better than I do).

To me it is simple, the original draft contract posted by Mr. Lefkowitz had a rate of 22 for non-residents/19 for TOWN residents. That is a subisdy of 3/hour.

Sportstime will of course work out their pricing, but as proposed, that is a benefit of 3/hour for Town residents. It should only be for TOV residents.

Anonymous said...

Sportime will be foolish to go forward with investment. My guess -- this will be held up in litigation. Why cant Village people agree that they are not entitled to TOV assets or subsidy.

Larry Lefkowitz said...

Applying the discount to all Town residents costs the TOV residents nothing and Sporttime had no problem with it. If it would be given only to TOV, Sporttime would not increase the discount, so it is absolutely a "freebee" and harmless.

Anonymous said...

Larry,

Excuse me for hesitating to rely on your "Sportime said so" -- becuase if they want to curry favor with Feiner, they have no choice.

Also, it does reduce the gross, which can reduce the B budget share of overall rentals.

If you want this so bad, make it fair. No subsidies to Village residents.

Anonymous said...

Larry,

Something doesnt add up. Someone at Sporttime is doing projections of income/expense etc. How can the discount not be factored in?

Enough already again said...

Is this real? People are arguing whether Sporttime has the right to charge whatever fees they want to charge, even though the fees go to Sporttime and not to the town?

Are people serious about the notion of a lawsuit based on Sporttime's business judgment about what to charge to get customers in to the facility?

Is their hatred of the villages so severe as to completely cloud their judgment and wind up turning Sporttime off the project because Sporttime has had more than enough with the petty bickering and namecalling by these TOV people?

This wonderful project has been held up for almost two years because there was concern about the budget allocation. Now that the Town Board has finally come to its senses about that, is it going to be held up some more because some TOV hotheads don't want village residents to have the same price as the TOV residents have, even though it has no impact on the town's budgets or taxes?

Do these people actually think that they are making a contribution to the town by this behavior?

Is this real?

Anonymous said...

One simple change in the contract -- define resident -- I doubt Sporttime would object.

E A A again said...

But why the hell do you care? It has no effect on anybody except Sporttime and they don't care. Do you need your anger stroked?

Anonymous said...

Lets get this straight, at the same time that Feiner is suggesting increased fees for Veterans, he wants discounts for Villagers at Sporttime. Sounds to me like as always Feiner will get what he wants -- contract favoring Village residents, and more litigation, including possibly restraining order re Sporttime.

Anonymous said...

"contract favoring Village residents, and more litigation, including possibly restraining order re Sporttime."

You are truly off the wall. It is more than anger. It is paranoia mixed with true ignorance.

Not even the king of litigation, Bernstein, would touch this "subsidy" nonsense.

Anonymous said...

If Sheehan had announced the proposal instead of Feiner, would these hostile comments be made? I don't think so. The critics would be applauding.

Like so much else in this town, it is all about Feiner.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Sheehan would have listened to comments. Before they turned into litigation.

Anonymous said...

What comments would Sheehan have listened to? The question was would the raging critics have raged if Sheehan had made the annoucement of the tennis bubble instead of Feiner. All you do is give another anti-Feiner answer.

You just proved the point. It has nothing to do with the merits of the issue (of which there are plenty) or demerits (of which there are none). It is only about the sickness of the anti-Feiner bunch, whose fever has made them delirious.

Anonymous said...

Sheehan would have put us in a bigger hole.
Hatred of Feiner has blined this man as to what is right and what is wrong.
We only have 2 more years of him and Juettner unless they both call it a day sooner.

Anonymous said...

We know how much the town will get from the deal - that's all that matters. What the private company charges is their private decision.

Anonymous said...

These rentals are pretty pathetic - even the "big" rent in year 15 would reduce this year's tax increase from 23% to 22%. How stupid do we have to be to sign on for this idiocy?
Doesn't anyone reading this blog have the intelligence to recognize when their pockets are being picked?

Anonymous said...

Let Irvington negotiate a deal with Sporttime for space on their very very restricted courts at their exclusive riverfront Mathiessen Park. (No persons of color are welcome - just try going for a stroll - the charge sheet reads "Walking while Black").
Let Elsmford negotiate its own deal for covered courts right near the Romantic Depot - it would improve the neighborhood.
Let Hastings ... you get the idea that every village has space and could benefit from a "Sporttime" style deal - but they don't want outsiders using their toys. So hwy should TOV residents not resent Villager discounts?

Anonymous said...

The only way TOV residents get treated fairly is through the courts.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that many have noticed that Sheehan had the upper hand in all things that were voted upon.
If Feiner made the suggestion it was turned down but if Sheehan was first in voicing his opinion it would be voted on.
This is wwhy we are in such a mess right now.
If the tennis court will help so be it.
But I think it's a little too late for o few years to come in lowering our taxes.
We will have taxes this high for a few years,unless all the cuts are made and revenue starts coming in.
Good planning is needed in this project,and every word of the contract and laws must be studied thoroughly,because we as taxpayers cannot absorb another park fiasco.