Wednesday, January 09, 2008

MEETING TOMORROW RE: citizens budget management review committee

On Thursday, January 10th at 7:15 PM there will be a meeting to establish a citizens budget/management review committee. The committee will help the Town Board review management procedures and will develop recommendations to make town government more efficient. We want to carefully monitor all spending in the town, look for ways to save money, make the budget much more transparent. The meeting will take place at Greenburgh Town Hall. This meeting is open to the public.
On Tuesday, January 15th at 7:15 PM there will be a land use summit meeting with the Town Board, Zoning Board & Planning Boards. The purpose of the meeting: to review existing land use policies. This meeting is also open to the public and will be held at Town Hall.


THE TRUTH said...


Anonymous said...

The previous idea is what should be followed to help the residents.
Both gentlemen are ver knowledgeable and they will be an asset to the town.

Anonymous said...

The last time Feiner set up a committee, it was SCOBA, and he stacked it with only his supporters. It was a waste of time. It solved nonething. Everything is still in litigation. I hope Feiner tries to get more representative people. On SCOBA, he allowed Village officials, but no civic leaders from unincorporated greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

Do you blame him in not choosing civic leaders from the unincorporated area especially those from Edgemont.
The public had enough of their tactics throughout the years.
What we need good government without interference from the ones that are always wanting and crying for something.
They cried for more parks and open space so now we are paying higher taxes.
Two people were mentioned in the previous blog,I do hope that they will be chosen and accept .

Know before you speak said...

Dear Mr. 1:14

There were no village officials on SCOBA, but the treasurer of an unincorporated Greenburgh civic association was on SCOBA. Plus a majority of unincorporated Greenburgh residents.

Anonymous said...

There are no parks in Edgemont. The money was spent to protect the Irvington SD. I doubt anyone will ever vote for a tax for greenspace again, because Paul wouldnt allocate it fairly.

Anonymous said...

You are right there are no parks in Edgemont,but you all fought like the dickens to acquire greenspace throughout Greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

No that was Danny Gold

But on another budget issue, what is going to happen with the Westhelp money

Anonymous said...

Yes it was Gold but you as representatives of other areas backed him up 100% .If you say that you fight for what is right why did you go along with the purchase??????
Now we have a good use for that property to help generate electricity for us and for others if at all possible.
This property should now be put to good use for the residents of Greenburgh and the areas arround.
Why have a piece of property that no one can build on or that is of no use to anyone.It was purchased to satisfy one person and his village,
Well now the whole area needs something done to furnish electricity to Greenburgh and the rest of the towns that need this service,

Anonymous said...

Actually, Edgemont didn't back Danny's Dalliance at all - and Feiner responded to one Edgemonter so inappropriately that Lasser ran for Supervisor and Bernstein took a hard look at the deal, then sued the Town.
Does a majority on the Board give the Supervisor and friends the right to revise history? I guess so - the victors are, after all, always the authors of history.

Anonymous said...

As to why have a piece of property that no one can build on, that is the nature of a park. The Supervisor has more than tripled the amount of UNBUILDABLE, UNSELLABLE land which still needs to be MAINTAINED since he took office. How do I know - his campaign literature proudly told me so.

Anonymous said...

By the way when there is a landfill site the trucks are charged to dump.
Yes a lot of the properties are buildable but we may not see this in our day.
Land is very sparce throughout so why not start building on what we have.
Many of these parcels are costing the residents more money each year for repairs .
This could be avoided to try to sell the land within the governing laws and start some smart development.

Anonymous said...

Who says there are no parks in Edgemont? Crane Pond, Cotswold park, the Greenburgh Nature Center are parks. The open space owned by Edgemont High should also qualify. The blog commentator either doesn't know what hes talking about or lives elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

I moved to Greenburgh because it has great parks & recreation. The proximity to transportation and highways is great. Keep the balance. Don't sell the parks.

Anonymous said...

Edgemonters want an area just like Central Park in New York to call Their Park.
The reason so no one builds on their land.Greed and more greed.

Anonymous said...

The parks one day will be sold because the upkeep will be too much.
Right now the tax payers are constantly paying for yearly repairs that have to be done over and over again.
The parks are not being used enough to bring in revenue to offset the repairs.
This is not a good way to run a business.

Anonymous said...

Feiner answered one Edgemont resident incorrectly in 25 years. That's a great record. Jim Lasser was then inspired to run? That is incredibly romantic and noble. Unfortunately for Lasser he was slaghtered in that race, and never showed up at Town Hall again. Yes, he ventured on to this blog now and again, but maybe that electoral beating cured him of a public career, vox populi. Even Princess Sandra "Chee" Berger showed up the other night to congratulate Paul and the other victors. But she must of been bored with all the different folks there, and when the clerk called her name, the party boss had vacated the premises for quieter climes. But of course we were once again blessed with Zog II's return.

Son of the Shadow

hal samis said...

Actually, actually Edgemont, you did support the purchase of Taxter Ridge -- you just didn't like who had to pay for it and who didn't.

Of course the above comment and the one I am responding to presume that all of Edgemont is represented when a handful of residents who live within Edgemont borders like to leave the impression that they speak for all residents of Edgemont.

However, let me remind blog readers that once upon a time buying parkland was in fashion and having a mass of greenspace viewable from the air was thought to be an agreeable and desireable goal. Preserve nature, clean air and stopping development were all the rage but having dinner in a restaurant is also enjoyable until the check is brought to the table.

Of course, given the choice between getting something to eat and having bragging rights over 200acres would not be a fair comparison -- particularly to a hungry resident.

Now the tide has turned as the cost of paying for and maintaining virtually unusable parkland has struck home.

But before I leave you to continue pissing without a pot let me remind you that the vote to purchase Taxter Ridge was a 5-0 vote. One of the 5 was Edgemont's very own electee, Eddie Mae Barnes. So I ask again, who represented Edgemont, Bob Bernstein, Jim Lasser or Eddie Mae Barnes. If you can't agree or think the question unfair, then consider that no one represents any section of Town and what would be more valid and not denying the substance would be to say merely that I'm .... and I live in ....

Anonymous said...

Taxter can't be used to generate electricity.

Anonymous said...

To anyone looking to sell the parks, or use them for anything other than passive recreation:
Mr. Feiner and his political friends didn't think through the consequences of buying that land. They entered into what can only be described as a "Catholic marriage" - meaning there is NO way out of the commitment. The land will be parkland FOREVER - and many Feiner supporters are very happy with that state of affairs. Right Danny?

Anonymous said...

Hal, NO ONE REPRESENTS EDGEMONT, or any other "neighborhood" because all Town Board members are elected "at large." The majority of the voters reside within the boundaries of the villages - and the current system just about guarantees that anyone, regardless of where they reside, who promises lower taxes and more services to those residents will be elected.
"Just three votes" is a convenient obfuscation of the truth - the residents of the unincorporated area are treated as colonial natives by the villagers. The unfair and immoral taking of resources by village residents must stop - where is your sense of decency and fairness Mr. Samis? I wouldn't expect it of a professional prostitute like an elected official, but someone of your intelligence and sense of innate fairness must certainly be disturbed by what you see.
The library board, against which you jusitifiably rail, was appointed and confirmed by the Town Board. Did they not do a good enough job vetting the candidates? Or did the village sympathies inherent in the process just happen to result in a diminution of services to unincorporated residents. Has Howard Jacobs not advanced the cause of the villages through his failure to defend the library and his adoption of policies which do no harm to the villages but seriously hurt unincorporated residents?

Enough is enough said...

I live in one of the villages. Until recently I knew very little about the unincorporated area of the town, nor did I care. It seemed as remote from me as White Plains or Yonkers. I think I speak for all village residents when I say that. Only when a group of unincorporated area residents, headed by Mr. Bernstein, started going after the villages, did I become aware of the town.

So why is the 11:36 blogger so paranoid about the villages? As far as I have learned, there is only one village resident on the Town Board, and she has a reputation of ignoring the villages, probably because she knew that village residents don't take much interest in town elections.

The blogger is living in another world. What "unfair and immoral taking of resources by village residents" is going on? The first time I heard of any dispute was when the villages were charged for the town's Public Works Departments failure to remove a dead tree which resulted in a big lawsuit. What "unfair and immoral" thing did the villages take? It seems to me to be the other way around. The villages had to pay for the failure of the town's Public Works Department to do its job. The villages pay for a lot of things that pertian only to the unincorporated area, so who is taking from whom?

What "village sympathies" were in play in selecting the Library Board, which has so thoroughly screwed up its job in the new library and in its aftermath. There is no village resident on the Library Board.

I know that Mr. Bernstein wants the villages to pay for town parks which are barely used by village residents (and then only because the town has sold them Unicards), and he certainly doesn't want the residents of unincorporated Greenburgh to pay for the parks in the villages which are also used by residents of the unincorporated area (free of charge). That is his excuse for setting parts of the town against each other

The villages never voted against the candidates of the unincorporated area. In 2005 the villages voted a majority for Mr. Greenawalt.

But after two more years of the paranoid rantings of people like the 11:36 blogger village residents were fed up with constantly being accused of turning the unincorporated area residents into some kinds of victims, and they voted against those who were the spokespersons for those like the 11:36 blogger. Enough is enough.

The blogger ought to get real and learn his facts. A visit to a psychiatrist would help him also.

Anonymous said...

Please do not put all the residents of the unincorporated area in one basket.
We too are fed up with the representation of the civic leaders who say that they represent us at town meetings.
We do not need representation that is trying to bury all of us with high taxes.
They wanted the town to purchase properties for park use,and they don't even use the parks.
They stop all kind of construction that would help our tax base.
they count how many trees are being cut down on someones property.
In other words they are just busy bodies that want to sue anyone and everyone in the drop of a hat.
If they have friends going in front of any board for a varience for one thing or another they have nothing to say.
At the meeting the other night there was a resident that wants to put up a large sign featuring her business in a residential area.
The were some neighbohood watches there who always have something to say but this time they remained quiet
If anyone else asked for the same varience they would be up in arms.
I do hope that this is not granted since it is a residential area,and if granted it will start a trend for others to do the same.
So as you can see for us in the unicorporated areas things are not so hunky dory.


Anonymous said...

Here's a sugestion for the new committee.
The Town could cut
14 police officers(1Capt,1 Sgt)from PD
7 Saniatation Men
7 Highway workers
4 Recreation workers(even more part time workers)
6 workers at the community center
6 Town hall workers
2 Bldg maint
3 water dept.employees
Still keep the same services and save lots of Money!

Anonymous said...

And what is the basis for 9:35's proposals? Other than making pleasanr noise?