Supervisor Feiner: AN OPEN LETTER TO UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS PETER SWIDERSKI...

Friday, February 29, 2008

AN OPEN LETTER TO UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS PETER SWIDERSKI...

I am writing to address the good citizens of Greenburgh, following on and reiterating my comments at the Town Board meeting last Wednesday. We would like to see the Town Board and the Villages work cooperatively together. The Villages have no interest in conflict, and no interest in unnecessarily dividing this town. Greenburgh is a wonderful community. As I said on Wednesday, the entire Town boasts of so many advantages, so many resources, and so many good and decent people that the precise fact of where an individual lives in the Town matters less than the fact that we enjoy it together, today and in the future. We are certainly seeking to work towards the pursuit of those goals, hand in hand with the Town Board.
There is apparently some concern regarding recent moves to modify Finneran. After the recent court decision, a re-examination of Town programs has led to the realization that if the Town is to maintain its range of choices and programs, some changes to Finneran would be necessary. The Villages’ interest in a modification to Finneran is to give the Town Board the flexibility to allow non-unincorporated residents access to facilities, parks and/or programs as needed. We have absolutely no problem with the imposition of fees on Village residents, cost plus or otherwise, for that access: it would only be fair. Any resolution asking for such modification to the law should certainly state that. Somehow, there is a perception that we want to allow all village residents to enjoy access to Finneran facilities solely at the unincorporated’s expense. Nobody ever suggested that, and if that is what is being read into what we are proposing, then we want to dispel that notion immediately. It is not what at all what we seek.
This Finneran modification is not intended to benefit the Villages unfairly, and we are open to an approach that makes sense and displays a “good government” sensibility. We believe the modification, in fact, provides greater benefits to Unincorporated Greenburgh than to the Villages, and is very much intended as a “win win” for both sides. It is extended as such, and intended as such. Our first assumption, in dealing with friends and neighbors, is that they operate in good will. It is certainly what is intended on our part, and we hope to be treated as such accordingly.
I will read the responses to this posting and I will try my best to respond to those who extend that courtesy of assuming my good will. Thank you for your time.
Peter Swiderski
Village Officials Committee
Hastings Village Trustee

263 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 263 of 263 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Dear 10:08.

I suspected this to be true of Ardsley as I'm sure it is with all other Villages.

If the law is amended, I hope that we will not create additional parks & rec programs specifically for different groups but that village residents are incorporated into the already ion place, vast, programs available.

Why Unincorporated remains to pay Edgemont Recreation to use Park & Rec properties for their own special programs, is a mystery to me. This needs attention regardless of any final outcome of the proposed possible amendments as it creates precedent and possible future problems.; 3/04/2008 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: No one listened to either the supervisor or Samis concerning the library .Now it's a little too late but I think it's now over yet.
We have to see how much more money is needed to finish this fiasco.
Thank you to the previous board for putting us in such a bind.
By the way
The State ruled on the Finnernan law for Taxter rd. and it should stay as is.
One cannot add or take away from laws to suit certain people as was done for Taxter rd.
This frienship cost all of New Yorkers a good penny,with a large backyard with plenty of wasteland.
The only person who could put this wasteland to work would be the great Donald Trump,by filling and building a golf course and condos.
Does anyone know him personally,if so put the thought in his ears.
Another is Cappelli who has transformed White Plains into a commercial city that will bring in plenty of tax revenue.; 3/04/2008 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: anon at 10:54. i dont get you. the court put the town in a bind. the way out is to get authority to flexibly apply finneran when its in the interest of the town.

this will allow greenburgh rec programs to survive, bring additional revenue to the town, allow the tennis bubble and so on.

what is so hard to understand?; 3/04/2008 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: I guess we're back to bashing the TOV people. Bring it on.

May I suggest the following -- the Town ask the Finnerman law to be amended to allow a Parks and Rec commission, elected solely by unincorporated persons, to allow for overrides or interpretations of Finnerman.; 3/04/2008 1:23 PM
Anonymous said...: We could have an election quickly. People could make campaign statements ( e.g., support bubble, dont support bubble, support additional nonr resident use, dont).; 3/04/2008 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kudos to Hal Samis regarding the library and the Sunrise proposal. Their (Sunrise) offer made a lot of sense. Half the existing property would have been sold, the old Town Hall would have been demolished and removed by them, the seniors could have helped at the library, the landscaping would have been done, the parking could have been shared, and the tax revenues from Sunrise would have created an income stream for financing the debt service on the bonds. The Supervisor proposed improving the heating and cooling systems along with modernization. We would not have this expensive re-location and disruption of services. (Note the Warner Library did not close down, but has just about completed a refurbishing.)

These facts were brought to the Board's attention more than once. I myself did a proposal for both Sunrise and the Bailey School. There was plenty of opportunity to look more carefully at the project. The Library Board put together around 34 public meetings that were attended by maybe 200 people at the most. In fact, most people knew little about the consequences of the project.

The supporters on and off both the Town and Library Boards wanted to use this issue as a political one to emabarrass and defeat the Supervisor. They failed at both, but we are saddled with an expensive behemoth.

Richard J. Garfunkel

(By the way one of the signing bloggers, constantly takes credit for being a library critic. Where was he in 2005? I'll tell you where, he was criticizing everything Feiner did and said, and wound up being the campaign manager for Feiner's opponent.); 3/04/2008 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon at 10:54, Feiner should have been pursuing "active" recreational uses of Taxter years ago. If we had an unincorporated Greeenburgh Parks and Rec commission, they could issue a RFP and get this moving. Active recreation improve value to homes.; 3/04/2008 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Feiner was against the new library from the beggining.
As far as Sunrise it would have been a good shot in the arm as far as tax revenue coming into the town but the library trustees saw things differently which caused only high taxes for years to come,alibrary that has not been built to the original spects and a library that will be half empty and not finished on time.
Samis was right one hundred percent but no one listened to him.
We could have renovated the old libray if it was needed and sold the old town hall.
Some underhanded planning was done by the board and the library trustees which puts us in this no way out position for the next few years.
We will have taxes upon taxes until this white elephant is completed not with the best interior or furniture that was first presented.; 3/04/2008 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: mr garfunkel - what motivates these feiner haters?

as feiner noted, he has been elected 9 times (the last time in a landslide) and must be doing something right.

you have been close to the scene for a number of years - what makes these folks tick?; 3/04/2008 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: anon at 1:43
ill bet you are right - the inside of the new library will be third rate.; 3/04/2008 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Paul if monies is given just to Fairview we will notify the Attorney Generlas office since you will not abide by the ruling of the Comptrollers office
The ruling states "to be used town wide"what part of the ruling is it that you do not understand..; 3/04/2008 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon 1:44 PM

I have known Paul Feiner since he was 15 years old. My wife met him when she was teaching at the Sleepy Hollow HS and we were both working in the ill-fated McGovern campaign. I was co-chairperson of White Plains with my good buddy Lynne Weiner. We actually won White Plains with hard, hard work. In those days the GOP outnumbered the Democrats by more than a few thousand.

Linda wanted to register her 18 year olds to vote (that was the first election they were eligible) and she called the Board of Elections for help. They sent Paul Feiner and he came on his bike!

Paul worked on numerous issues, wrote uncountable amounts of letters to all the news outlets of that day and became popular with the average citizen.

If there were an "open" primary, where anyone could run, regardless of a party designation and anyone could vote, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Liberal or Conservative he would beat any or all comers, plain and simple.

Some people don't like him because he can't be bought and he won't play ball with the bosses and the movers and shakers.

Greenburgh is a big prize and he stands in the way of power brokers who want it.

How could anyone believe that Suzanne Berger was prepared to run Greenburgh? The party regulars who call themselves Democrats talk more like Republicans. Most talented people have been avoiding party politics for years. Just take a look at the City and Town Committees all around the County. What happened to the talented lawyers, the business owners, the activists? They ran to the hills. Why would they want to endure the claptrap from hacks that permeate the party structure. All the District Leaders that fell on their sword for Berger, Sheehan and Juettner should resign and take up another line of work.

Paul Feiner will stay in office for as long as he wants because the average person likes him, respects his committment and values, and is generally happy with his administration.

There will always be the kooks of the Kabal running to Town Hall with their nit-picking silliness, but they, with all their lies, will always be in the minority.; 3/04/2008 7:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Watching this at home -- total bs, the parks and rec advisory committe is not of unincorporated greenburgh. I didnt vote for them. Paul, the king of the village supporters, appoints them.; 3/04/2008 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: FRank Kaiman is great. He really explained options.; 3/04/2008 8:14 PM
ed krauss said...: Mr. Garfunkel, a number of new Garfunkelisms have appeared on this blog which have given new insights into the "real richard."

Hank Aaron and his brother Tommy, hit 756home runs.Hank hit 755and Tommy hit the balance.In like fashion, "neither me(richard) nor Milt(Hoffman) have all the answers,"from one of your "sagacious" blog postings, begs the question, "Which one are you, Hank or Tommy?"

There is also a world record shattering posting by you at 2:17P.M. on 3/3/08...Seven, count'um, seven words. Your fingers without question, have done more walking than your Geratol would allow.

With regard to your commendable, undying
loyaty to Paul Feiner, and your unwarranted enmity to all who you perceive- mind you ONLY perceive- to be hostile toward him, I quote from a Psych 101text, "pathological liars sometimes tell the truth, paranoids do have enemies, and there is "some" validity to criticizing that which is wrong, irrespective of how many wrongs are brought into the light.

Between his tenure on the County Board and as supervisor of Greenburgh,he has survived and thrived, well before you came on the scene. And your compulsive accusations, name calling and groupings of the "us vs. them" campaign is as useless as teats on a bull.

No one needs your all-knowing didactics-without-portfolio, moreso since the lion's share are inaccurate opinions presented as fact.

your cliches, repeated ad nauseam, have been devalued by over exposure, if, in deed they ever had value. So why don't you coin some new superfluous words/phrases, bury and sit shivah for "730 day campaign" and "Cabal". I'm certain in your erudite personna there beats a creative bone unadulterated by over use.

Milt and I didn't have all the answers about some subjects near and dear to our hearts but we fought on. Today, he's happily retired and I sit here...just tired.; 3/04/2008 8:35 PM
Anonymous said...: No one beleives Paul that if we give the power to the Town that to allow Villages, the Villagers will overrun, even more than now, the TOV facility. The way to cure that is to have the Parks Board be elected.; 3/04/2008 8:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Paul thinks we in TOV are idiots. He talks about the Town Board, or a future Town Board, being supportinve of the TOV, KNOWING THAT THE VILLAGES HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES.; 3/04/2008 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sorry my name was left off 7:54Pm

Richard J. Garfunkel

By the way, to one of the bloggers; Milt Hoffman will be on my program "The Advocates" tomorrow, you can catch it live streaming at www.wvox.com at 12 noon!

Someone must feel terribly guilty about being accused of being a card-carrying member of the CABAL.

That individual keeps ranting and raving forever and a day. Yes, Paul was elected many years ago, and he did it on his own! Good for him. That fact made him quite independent.

It is amazing that when name callers and political assasins are labeled for what they are they get quite huffy, defensive, and exercised.

Yes, I am a relative newcomer to Greenburgh, but not a newcomer to this county or a novice when it comes to knowing court jesters. After my first meeting at Town Hall I was quite able to discern who were the real clowns. Funny thing is that some have changed, but for sure one hasn't.

By the way, if you don't like my act or prose, tough!

RJG; 3/04/2008 10:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Richard, your attacks are not helping. If you are a true supporter of Paul, you will tone down your rhetoric.; 3/05/2008 5:38 AM
Anonymous said...: No disrepect to the current Parks and Rec Commission, and I realize that they are all residents of unincoproated Greenburgh, but they serve at the pleasure of Paul, and we dont really know what will happen if they make recommenations and the Board overrules them. For example, Paul feels strongly that non-resident first responders should have the right to membership at Veteran. When asked why the Villages dont have to provide such, he ignored that question. It certainly appeared to me that if the Parks and Rec Committee recommended that such memberships be discontinued, he (and his, as Hal would say, just 3 votes) and his team would overrule them.

So again, no disrepect to the Parks and Rec commission, but it appears to me that they have limited power, can be overruled by the Town Board, etc, and do not offer the TOV the protection we deserve.; 3/05/2008 6:04 AM
Anonymous said...: why is greenburgh such a prize?

is it the job of municipal government to act as a hiring hall for party regulars?

you say the wannabee cranks want power. power to do what?

details please mr g

confidential to ed k - why have you soured on mr f - juettner we understand; 3/05/2008 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon 5:38 am-

This morning's winds must have awakened you quite early. I believe that your crocodile tears over Paul's future, regarding my support, vigorous or not, are not insanely sincere.

I believe that my spirited remarks about this small, but willfull group of faux community activists, has not hurt Paul Feiner in the least. His record, good, bad or indifferent will determine his future. The people who read this blog may have influence a bit beyond their vote, but its readership is miniscule with regards to the total electorate.

My effort has been to expose both the hypocricy of this nest of CABALISTS and the out of touch policies of the Town Democratic party leadership.

I do not clear my remarks with Paul Feiner, who can handle himself quite well, and I have not heard one iota from a Feiner supporter who is critical of my remarks.

With regards to the question about "why is Greenburgh is a political prize," ask Suzanne Berger who spent nearly $100,000 and quite a bit of her own money.

Politics, as any sophomore would know, has many rewards. Just look at the recent articles about Reggie Lafayette or Ms Conn-Halevi. People want jobs, power, influence and deals. Berger's law firm benefited by her connections. I am for sure not criticizing her firm, and I am sure their lawyers are top notch and honest, but political connections and referrals never hurt.

As to a certain contributor to this blog, his sensitivity is amusing. If it hurts Paul Feiner to expose and identify this clown, than so be it. It seems that in every city, town, village and hamlet there are unique characters that constantly display their "act" for the amusement of the small, but interested observers. I don't even have to mention his name, because everyone with any experience at Town Hall or reader of this blog, knows him quite well.

Richard J. Garfunkel; 3/05/2008 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Richard,

Your increasing attempts to up the temperature will only work to make resolution of a complex situation more difficult. Many people would like to see a resolution.; 3/05/2008 12:38 PM
ed krauss said...: Btw, Richard, I have NEVER taken credit for being a library critic, because I wasn't a library critic in 2005, nor am I now. I am a critic of the library construction abortion which we are witnessing.

Nor was I the campaign manager for Feiner's opponent in 2005.

Nor did I criticize "everything Feiner did or said," only those things that needed criticism.

The more you write on this blog, the more you reinforce what I say about you. You don't know what you're saying, but you say it with authority.

Having Milt on your radio show does not tell me that "you and Milt don't have all the answers," merely he has an opportunity to be on WVOX the 5,000 or so Watt powerhouse on the Sound Shore. Sorry I can't listen , but I have a business to run, and if I want to "listen" to your pronouncements, I can read the blog at my leisure.

For the record,I don't hate Paul. I reserve my hate for the likes of Hitler and Arafat. I'm sure in your heart of hearts and under sodium pentathal, you too would admit Paul is managerially, and administratively as well as fiscally challenged. Is it wrong of me to point these things out, I don't think so. Is it wrong to knowingly NOT admit to it you betcha. And although I point out your foibles I think you're smart enough to agree with me on those issues.

As to feeling "guilty" about being a card carrying member of the CABAL,spare me your $2 analysis. I don't feel guilty because I was not a member of your fictitious CABAL.

If I'm a name caller, your must be one also, else what would you call calling people "court jesters," and "real clowns?"; 3/05/2008 1:17 PM
Anonymous said...: paul - please pass a resolution banning krauss and garfunkel from the blog for 30 days.

the journal news has a prohibition on repeat letters every 30 days.

its enuf about silly cabals and jesters.

richard writes well but often his grasp extends his reach.
ed writes very well (he is after all the previous owner of 3 advertising companies), but he is getting too much like the captious ella "francis i love you" preiser who should also take a much needed break.

certainly they have more to say than diana juettner who i believe they both agree is long overdue to meet the same fate as eddie mae "just sleeping here" barnes.; 3/05/2008 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: addendeum.

but we need a break also from all this carping.; 3/05/2008 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: I am constantly amazed that people worry about who contribute to this blog and why! I state my views, which quite often are a direct reflection of issues, political attacks and postulation, posed on this site. Should I not? Obviously there are some out there who object to my views, comments and whom I support. Too bad!

As to others, who sign their pieces, some make sense, and others do not. I have rarely named names and if my characterizing of an individual as a "clown" or a "court jester" resonates, I assume, "where there is smoke, there's fire."

Personally I see no excessive "heat," but "light," with regards to the library, Taxter Ridge, the past political campaign, Dromore Road, law firm connections, and Town Board member's efforts.

Paul Feiner has created this unique forum. He should be applauded for his creativity. But it shouldn't be a one-sided bash-board for the anonymous to take potshots at him without a thoughtful response. If the "anonymous" have an issue with my postings, state your name and I'll answer your points.

Richard J. Garfunkel; 3/05/2008 4:44 PM
ed krauss said...: Thank you 1:56. I must say I am not a captious person by nature. But if that is your perception, my denial matters very little.

I have no problem with your once-every-30-days, suggestion. However, the suggestion can only be enfoced against those handful of hardy souls who daign to use their real name.

So it would be patently unfair to punish or restrict those with the courage of their convictions by signing their name.

I think it would be an interesting experiment if as print media do,not to publish any posting without a real name.

Granted it would cut down on the controversial points; the back stabbing; the accusations without attribution, or more likely...chateaubriand waste; and it would make people THINK before they put their name to something. It would also cut down on the number of postings- which really wouldn't be so bad.

Newspaper, and magazine letters pages haven't been hurt by forcing the writer to put a name to it. In fact the Journal News actually calls to verify if the name is correct.

So count me in as one of your supporters (no comments, please.); 3/05/2008 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: who is right?

bernstein says the unincorporated has no assets.
mcnally says the town' s parks are the assets of unincorporated?

do i sense confusion in the ranks of edgemontonia?; 3/05/2008 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Who owns Greenburgh and what does Greenburgh own?

Again, I'm in over my head on this topic but speaking an interested lay person (on this matter) I need to ask someone, even if they are two miens in one like Frank Kaiman who might be able to clarify what is going on. Mr. Kaiman, his own man and, also their man being the delegate of the Edgemont Association (700+ pop). Unfortunately no one present asked him why being these miens about town, he wasn't invited to attend that meeting in Harrison with Mr. Bernstein and Ms McNally who weren't there representing their affiliation either; so I would have thought that, with all the Town Council members going in and out of the secret meeting, that there might have been one seat for the head of the civic association where Dromore is located.

But if I wanted an explantion, I sure wasn't going to get it by watching the Tuesday evening Town Board meeting.

Michelle McNally, Ella Preiser and others said that by allowing guests, sports teams and tennis players to play in the unincorporated sandbox, the Town Board will be giving away unincorporated assets. Ok, but then we have Bob Bernstein, who used to play on that team until he lost the appeal that was really a victory (see, you're confused too) now saying that these assets are really owned by "Greenburgh", the township and any monies collected from those assets belong to the A budget, the one for the Town entire.

So, according to Bernstein, all Greenbugh, unincorporated, owns is a few beat-up trucks and police cars the Fairview area which doesn;t get burglarized as much as Edgemont because the story of Willy Sutton is available online from Amazon kindle. And this is good because the nearby Community Center which is not used by everyone is apparently better off if everyone, who doesn't use it, recognizes that it is going to get better under new management which might persuade everyone who pays for it, still not to use it, the Supervisor's discount notwithstanding.

Meanwhile Carol Wielk says that seniors (she apparently now speaks for seniors in the same manner that CGCA and ECC civic associations speak for their community) can't afford to live in Greenburgh because Dave Dwinnell, receiver of taxes, told the Greenburgh Dems that this group come continuously to his door to plead that they can't afford rising taxes and don't want to have to move to Florida where those libraries aren't promoting themselves as the libraries of tomorrow because in Florida, tomorrow is only a day away. So Ms. Wielk, sympatico with Seniors and their plight, then gets back on the horse she rode in on and argues against amending the
Finneran law so that legitimizing the Tennis bubble revenue, millions of dollars over the lease duration, just might reduce some of those rising taxes which include the "$68" portion that goes to pay for the Library expansion.

Also visiting the podium was Lorren Brown to do his '20 Questions With Lorren' routine: "I don't know, do you?" Would someone find him an answer so we can see if he is able to remember it from one meeting to the next.

But, back to my original question, Who owns Greenburgh? I know the answer but even after checking with title companies, I can't get them to confirm the transfer. Nevertheless, I am going to go on record and say that I believe it is Pat Weems. Why else would she be demand so many "I want you to's". Obviously the Town Board believes that Ms Weems owns Greenburgh; otherwise they would (politely) have her removed to Dobbs Ferry to occupy a suite in her Community Hospital which I understand she generously allows to accept guests from both unincorporated and the villages. Ms Weems, at Budget time, also wanted taxes to be lowered but apparently she is unwilling to allow any of her considerable assets to be touched.

Then Ms. Preiser brought down the house with the news that unincorporated taxes are now being recalculated as north of 20% because of the left unsaid inference that the success of the Appeal has resulted in reapportioned taxes while also left unsaid was the revelation that declining interest rates have also adversely affected the interest income paid on town fund balances.

Meanwhile, I have to go offline now to talk with Sherman and Mr Peabody who have just returned from the year 2016. They have promised to tell me how Bernstein XVI has been decided.

If you are now as confused as I am, wait for Sunday when Fiorello will be online reading the funny page for TIV and TOV alike.; 3/05/2008 10:37 PM
Anonymous said...: We have a problem changing ,amending and the such with the laws that were set down for reasons to favor certain villages.
Now because the supervisor sees some more troubles arising he wants the law amended.
Heck no.
Start cutting down employees by offering a buy out.
We have employees working for over twenty five years, give them an incentive to leave.
The longer they stay the more money we have to pay for their pensions.
The problem is that where there should be good laws in place to serve the tax payers you have been deaf,dumb and blind.
You have to start some where and it had better be sooner than later.
We are heading for a big disaster here in Greenburgh since our tax money has been mismanaged for quite some time.
Too much green space was purchased without thinking of what the costs would be in years to come.
POOR MANAGEMENT.
All these aquisitions should have been weighed at the time of the purchase but instead it was done so as not to have the land developed.
Next year the tax rate will be over twenty percent.
The following year it will be way over the previous year,can't you see what you and the board are doing you're just chasing your tail.
Too many people work in many of the departments.
WHY?
The workload has not increased,because the place still looks a mess as far as the DPW goes.
There are too many programs that are in place by the rec. Dept.
How many people use them and if they do, they come from the villages.
If this town reaches the point of bankruptcy you have to blame yourselves for not being good managers .
Just check out Central ave,with all the empty stores and those that are going out of business .
Central ave. will be a ghost town pretty soon.
What is chasing these store keepers away from our area.
Has anyone made a study as to what is happening or do you think that the situation will get better.
Wake up it is latter than you think.; 3/06/2008 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: The Finnernan law was put forth to benefit those that pay for certain services.
It should not be changed or ammended.
Did it serve it's purpose when it was initiated?
Do you think that if we do get the bubble it will make things different?
The damage has already been done
and there is no turning back.
You cannot undo what you thought would be a win win plan at one time now it is making us sink.
If possible start selling some of the parklands to developers this waymuch needed revenue will be brought in.
No matter how much you charge for membership it will not be enough to cover the expenses.
Wise up your're spending more than you're taking in.; 3/06/2008 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...: wow - what confusion

a says cut programs to save taxes

b says dont change finneran

c says why should i live in a town with reduced services

d says sell the parks

e says central avenue is going bust

f says unincorporated has assets

g says unincorporated owns nothing

h says a tennis bubble will generate millions

i says i hate the villages

k says why cant we work together

l says incorporated the unincorporated

m says its too expensive and there is no civic will to do so

diana juettner says nothing.

what say you?; 3/06/2008 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: incorporate the unincorporated that is; 3/06/2008 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: A programs should be cut to save money,especially if the facilities are not used 100% by the people that pay the taxes.
I have lived here for fifty years and I still do not know where all the parks are and to tell the truth I really don't care.
I would sell them in the drop of a hat to some good developers so that my taxes would be lowered
People wanted to by all the green spaces to keep developers out so now we the taxpayers are paying and will be paying higher taxes each and every year if something is not done to rid the town of these parks
Parks do not bring enough money to lower our taxes in fact they cost us more and more each year for the upkeep.

.; 3/06/2008 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: dear alleged 50 year resident

when the decisions were made over the past several decades to add open space - did you say anything?

did you vote for the advocates of open space?

taxes are high everywhere.

please tell me where it is written you have the right to live in greenburgh if you cannot afford it any longer. now you want to turn the town into wall to wall concrete because its become too expensive for you.

as you saw the taxes increase, did you carefully assess your financial situation and consider relocating to something more affordable either in terms of housing or location?

or did you hide your head in the proverbial sand?

btw - who was the supervisor when you moved to greenburgh?; 3/06/2008 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Dare I start writing again? Oh well, sticks and stones and all that, but the words of the anonymice will never hurt me.

Let me start by saying that once again, hal samis with his humor, has stuck a pin into the balloon.

Let me give you the definitivbe answer to the question of who owns the Greenburgh assets, which became a question only because Bob Bernstein has made another of his false statements about law.

Bernstein actually said that the revenues from the tennis bubble would be in the A budget because Veteran park is a town-wide asset. He compared it to the WestHelp revenue situation. He is wrong on both of these counts.

The law is that all town revenues are town-wide revenues unless there is a statute that provides otherwise, or unless the revenue comes from a town-outside activity. A town-outside activity is one which, by statute, has been determined to apply only to the town-outside, such as the Building Department, the Zoning Department, etc., and revenues that come from these are town-outside (or B budget) revenues.

The parks and recreation facilities have been made town-outside activities by the Finneran Law. That is why fees and other revenues received by the Parks and recreation departments are town-outside (or B budget) revenues.

The reaaon why WestHELP revenues are A budget itemns is because rental or real property has NOT been statutorily made into a town-outside activity, and therefore those revenues must be town-wide.

Now Bernstein knows that quite well -- as he knew quite well what the Finneran Law required before he began his lawsuit, and he knew that the outcome would be exactly what it turned out to be.

You may ask then, why does he distort the law all the time? He does it because it suits his agenda -- and I will not describe that agenda on this family blog.

We may also ponder, how many times will the town and the Town Board listen to Bernsytin's distortions? How many times does Bernstein have to be proven wrong (and I say modestly, how many times do I have to be proven right)? Isn't it time for everybody to realize that when Bernstein speaks about the law, the safe and proper thing to do is to react with skepticism (and I am being polite) and assume that the real law is different from what Bernstein says it is. If the town had adopted that position four years ago, imagine how much money could have been saved, and how much heartache an acrimony could have been avoided.

Now watch the fur fly. Fortunately this blog will shortly disappear.; 3/06/2008 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: I am clearly not a good typist, but the phrase "rental or real property" should have been "rental of real property."; 3/06/2008 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: questions for herb r

herb - your postings are always welcome.

im glad you dont take the obnoxious view of ella preiser who rudely told the supervisor she doenst read his blog. perhaps she should.

question - the issue has been raised whether the town (unincorporated) that is, has to pay for the state and county portion of taxter in light of the app div determination that town parks must be limited to unincorporated.

your view?

also - are the villages entitled to a rebate for the payments they made unlawfully for taxter?

finally, mcnally says the town's parks are assets of unincorporated. bernstein says unincorporated owns nothing.

who is right?; 3/06/2008 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: listen and read all these blog comments and you know that nothing will be done.
The state will not change or ammend the Finnernan law.
Do you think State officials will make a change to suit a chosen few.
Our state legislatures who represent us in Albany can't get out of their own way.
Considering how many times one department in Albany was called
upon to see the wrong doings going on here in Greenburgh our
state representatives will stay clear out of this picture.
They will do that if they are smart.; 3/06/2008 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: so:

p says state officials dont care about greenburgh

q says thats defeatist. its the job of the legislature to respond to changes required in the law by court decisions (see: Finneran); 3/06/2008 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: To the blogger who wrote at 1:18 P.M. under the name “questions for Herb r.” I will answer your questions as best as I can.

You ask whether the unincorporated area of the town has to pay for the state and county portion of Taxter in light of the Appellate Division determination that town parks must be limited to unincorporated. I suppose that your question is based upon the fact that the town has agreed to open Taxter Ridge in exchange for the state’s and the county’s payment of two-thirds of the cost of Taxter Ridge (and as best as I remember the town agreed to bear the cost of maintaining Taxter Ridge). The court said that the issue of violation of Finneran was not before it, but made it quite clear that the town did not have the right to contract as it did, and the court implicitly gave an answer to the problem -- the town can reimburse the state and county and restrict Taxter Ridge. Put another way, the court was not asked to remedy the situation, and I would suspect that if Bernstein had asked the court to enforce Finneran and restrict Taxter Ridge, the answer might not have been to anybody’s liking -- e.g., the town can buy out the state and county. In the absence of the court addressing the issue, the deal with the state and the county requires that the costs remain in the B budget.

You ask whether the villages are entitled to a rebate for the payments they unlawfully were charged for Taxter Ridge (that is, for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 budget years). I don’t know for sure, but they haven’t asked for it. I think that the general rule is that when a budget is finalized and not challenged within a specified time (four months, I think) then that budget becomes final. Let sleeping dogs lie.

As to the difference between what Michelle McNally says (that town parks are assets of unincorporated) and what Bernstein says (that unincorporated owns nothing), I have attempted to answer that in an earlier posting. But let me elaborate.

It isn’t really a question of who owns what assets (and unincorporated does own some, like the library). Who knows how old parks were acquired, who paid for them, and things like that. The question of “ownership” might become relevant if the town decided to sell a park, in which case the background would have to be explored. The issue we have all been grappling with, and which has caused such acrimony, is who gets revenues from, and who pays expenses for, the parks and recreation facilities. And that question has been answered by the Finneran Law. It has explicitly said that the parks and facilities are paid for by unincorporated. It has also made the parks and facilities town-outside activities and therefore the revenues belong to unincorporated. It is really an easy question if you have had the opportunity to study the N. Y. statutes, the court decisions, and the State Comptroller opinions, but it may not be so obvious to the ordinary lay person.

Bernstein made his comment in an effort to mislead residents into thinking that notwithstanding what the Supervisor and the Town Board said, the tennis bubble revenues would not really come to the B budget. He was wrong, of course, but it fit his purpose.

I’m here to help.; 3/06/2008 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: dear mr r:

his purpose being what? im bit unclear. he wants the whole town to pay for taxter esp as the town violated finneran with regard to taxter but finneran precludes it.

it seems you both agree the tennis bubble cannot go forward without an amendment to the law. the supervisor understands that. i dont know if the rec board does but give them time.

wouldnt he want the revenues to go to the B budget where he lives?

your thoughts as always are welcome.

ps. thx for your earlier answers.; 3/06/2008 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't want to get into a description of Bernstein's purposes, but in this instance he wants to prevent an amendment to the Finneran Law, and by saying that the revenues from the tennis bubble will go into the A budget he raises concerns among the people who do want such an amendment.

I won't go into what I believe are his larger purposes.; 3/06/2008 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

It just seems fair to me that only the people who pay for the facility get to use it. You won the case. So you dont pay. OK, but then you dont use. Seems fair to me.; 3/06/2008 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: dear anon

i suggest you watch the town board meeting.
there will be nothing to use if there is no amendment.; 3/06/2008 7:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

The problem is that many people in TOV dont trust the Town Board to be fair to us if given the power to allow non-residents to use TOV facilities. Even if they pay nominal fees, it doesnt make up for the cost of the facilities. And even if the Parks and Rec committe makes recommendations, that doesnt give me a lot of comfort. The Town Board is not required to accept their recommendations, the Town Board or the supervisor appoints them, its not like they are elected.

Herb, if you can come up with a way to allow the tennis bubble without giving the Town Board a blank check (written on TOV accounts, btw) to allow villagers access to TOV facilities, please post it.; 3/06/2008 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: dear mr r

outside of edgemont incorporation i dont know what his larger purposes are

thats not happening yesterday, today or tomorrow

thats in stone.; 3/06/2008 7:43 PM
Anonymous said...: It's the top of the first, sports' fans. The "B" teams comes out and makes a pronouncement which to the uneducated seems legal, and scores. "B's" one, R's coming to bat. The "R's" come out with an array of "facts" which swing from the heals. Oh what a shot to the "truth" of what the "b" team used to score."R's" rack up point(run) after point and bury the "B's" with the "real law." "R'S" take a four "point(run)" lead.

In the top of the second, the "B's" are not heard from, so they go down in order. In the bottom of the second, the "R's" are aided and abetted by questions rom the "cheap eats," The "R's" pick upthe ball and provide logical legal ht after logical legal hit and again score big.

At this point the umpires are huddled discussing whether the "Mercy Rule" should be imposed. Sports fans this would be precident settig. Even in Little League, they wait until the fourth to impose it.We in the booth can understand that the "B's" butts are being kicked, they can't answer or defend themseles and are "dead to the world," with their silence. Can it be possible that the captain of the "B" team, who hasfought valiently, and, in fact, won by losing- another first, sports fans. has run out of plausible deniabilty( we don't know what the hell that means, but it was handed to us and signed by the president of the ECC whatever the hell that is. Nevertheless, anything signed by the president-eventhoughwe can't make out the signature- of anything, gets our attention, job security you know.

The umpsare still conferencing, so we'll break for a commercial." Folks if you're within blogsite ofthis encounter, you're probably within the confines of the greatest little town in the greatest little county in the greatet little state in the only country that permits people to call the pesident any pejoritive they choose to. For more information about living in Greenburgh, call 914 993 1540 24/7."
Now back to the game.

Fans we're still in the bottom of the second, the umps are still conferencing, tonight's my bowling night, I don't give a flying #&*!#&* Whether Bernstein'sa liar or Rosenberg will continue to "eat his lunch," so this is Wgre the greenest little AM station in the greatest lttle...oh hell,signing off.; 3/06/2008 7:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Watch and learn

I dont understand what you mean -- nothing left to use. The parks budget is millions of dollars. The part of the parks budgets paid by fees is very very small, and that part of the fees paid by non-residents is even less. If overtime, and some part-time employees must be cut, that would offset it.; 3/06/2008 7:48 PM
Anonymous said...: I am delighted by the friendly responses and questions to my couple of comments. I usually back off after I have written, because the responses are usually so nasty. I will try to answer these latest comments precisely because they are genuine.

To Anon 7:21. Sure it is fair, but whether or not you consider it to be necessary is for you (or the town) to decide. The villages have parks also, and while some of them are restricted to village residents, many, probably most, are open to all. It really doesn’t cost anything if some non-residents walk into the parks or pay to participate in programs. It is add-on money in all but very few cases. But it is up to the town to make that decision. The villages don’t care. Well, a little. Ardsley has been asking for many years to be allowed to have a few memberships in the pool, and after all, a part of Veteran Park is in the village of Ardsley. The town has always had an exclusive view of it, and some people have thought it to be unneighborly, but you know the old rule. If you own it then you can invite or not invite as you please.

Watch and learn at 7:42 has it right, and that is what is really sad. If there is no amendment the unincorporated area will lose a great deal. The villages lose nothing. A group of people have tried to picture the proposed amendment as something that is a giveaway to the villages. Of course it isn’t that at all. As I said, villagers, except for a very small handful, don’t use the town parks or have any wish to do so. The reason this group has distorted reality is because (a) they are furious that the Taxter Ridge case was reversed, and (b) they have such animosity to the Supervisor and the new Town Council members that they will cut their noses (rather, the town’s nose) to spite their (and the town’s) face. The villages noses are not involved in this. Village represntatives have said that they will help the unincorporated area as long as it doesn't mess up the Finneran Law. We have waited five years to have it affirmed by the court and we are very careful about letting it be compromised.

Anon 7:43 says that many people in TOV don’t trust the Town Board to be fair to TOV residents if given the power to allow non-residents to use TOV facilities. As I said to someone else, you cannot ever get a solution to anything if the operative attitude is that “we don’t trust you” or “you don’t represent us.” We live in a democracy and elected legislators make policy. They are usually smart enough not to get the population angry. If you would rather live with a court decision that makes it illegal to permit non-residents to have access to unincorporated parks (even though the “demand’ for such access is somewhere between none and ultra-minimum)that hurts unincorporated, rather than give the elected Town Board some trust, then that can be your choice. No skin off any villager’s teeth. Think about it.

Anonymous at 7:44, I’d like to meet you. I have never thought of this as a contest between B and me, but if it was you called it well.

I think that the town needs less anger and more neighborliness. But it is up to the unincorporated residents. The only thing that I would suggest is that the residents not let the same half-dozen people speak for the 42,000 residents. If you agree with that, say it loud and clear at Town Board meetings -- next one is next Wednesday.; 3/06/2008 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

The problem with leaving it up to elected officials, is, as you know, the TOV has know. The villagers have more votes. As you said, the Town Board is smart enough not to make decisions, even if unfair, which are not popular with the majority of the voters.

If there were to be a Park and Rec Board elected solely by TOV, that might be an answer.

It is easy for you to take this holier than thou atittude when you know the village controls the votes.

As I said, if you can come up with a way to have the Tennis Bubble without having the Town Board control access to TOV paid for parks, I would love to hear it.; 3/06/2008 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

The same people, including you, speak for the villages almost every time. Why are TOV representatives accorded any less respect or privilidges.; 3/06/2008 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb, if the demand for TOV parks is so minimal, why dont you just agree to let the nonTOVers use Dobbs Ferry pool and parks.; 3/06/2008 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

If you want more neighborliness, I think it is up to the Villagers. Let them agree to put Parks and Recs in the A budget. I dont think this is unreasonable. I am tired of one-sided solutions.; 3/06/2008 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, the earlier comments to my explanations were friendly and genuinely questioning. The last batch were not. So I’ll answer them and then say bye-bye until the next time I can’t resist writing.

To Anon 9:17. It has become the talking point for some unnamed perennial speakers that the villagers control the Town Board because there are more village residents than unincorporated residents. It would be a fair point if that small majority were reflected in the composition of the Town Board. The truth is that village residents have not cared about what is going on in the unincorporated area. They always voted for the candidates that the Greenburgh Democratic Committee chose, except for Feiner who, all will agree, has transcended the usual rules of electibility. He swamps the opponents all over town. In 2005, in spite of several provocations (Taxter Ridge, the insurance settlement) and in spite of the SCOBA revelations, the villages voted for Sheehan and Juettner, not the candidates running with Feiner. Does that tell you something? In 2007 they voted for Morgan and Brown (unincorporated area residents by the way), because the behavior of the Town Board, and especially Steve Bass, was so ruthlessly hostile to the villages that village residents woke up. With Taxter Ridge reversed, and the peace and quiet that now exists on the Board, I suspect the village residents will fall asleep again.

To Anon 9:19. Fair point. I wish more village residents would come and speak. I also wish more unincorporated area residents would come and speak. But keep something in mind. The Town Board governs the unincorporated area, it doesn’t govern the villages. There are plenty of people who attend their village Board of Trustees meetings and speak.

Anon at 9:20. You do what I really deplore. Instead of addressing an issue, you change the subject.

Anon at 9:22. There are reasons why the Legislature (approved by the town and villages) adopted the Finneran law, but you are not interested in that. You define neighborliness in financial terms. It is as if I asked you to pay for many village parks just because you have the right to use them, and a few unincorporated area residents do come to our parks to enjoy the scenic Hudson views. That is a discussion not worth having.

And now, good night and good bye.; 3/06/2008 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb, as to the comment at 9:20, which you say is deplorable, you were the one who said any proposed village use is minimal.; 3/06/2008 10:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

Taxter Ridge may have been reversed, but the Village people who want use of the parks are now louder than ever. Apparently the villagers wont rest until they dont have to pay for facilities, but can use them.; 3/06/2008 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Last word, since I am still at the computer.

To Anon 10:12. You will note that the tiny handful of village residents who want to use town facilities (e.g.,the few in Ardsley who would like to use the pool) are quite willing to pay, and pay handsomely. It is the 45,000 who don’t want to use the town facilities who don’t want to be taxed for the town parks as well as their village facilities. The town can certainly say no.

To Anon 10:13. You are quite wrong that “the Village people who want use of the parks are now louder than ever.” If you are talking about the comments at recent Board meetings, you are failing to understand. The only thing that village representatives are firm (not loud) about is that any proposed amendment has to be agreeable to the villages because we won’t let the Finneran Law be amended piece-meal -- it is too important to the villages. Usage is your baby. We don’t care. Commissioner Gerry Byrne cares.

And now I am going to bed.; 3/06/2008 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

We will have to agree to disagree whehter the number of Village people who want to use TOV facilities, which includes the Village first responders, the Village families with handicapped. the Village children on teams, and now the Ardsely people who want in is little or not little.

In any event, I DO think the amount they want to pay is small, compared to the Parks budget.

Gerry Byrne may be a great guy, but I dont think he is concerned about fairness of who pays for what. Like many in our government he assumes that property tax money is his to spend.; 3/07/2008 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Herb is right: there are indeed precious few Villagers at Town meetings precisely because most have little interest in unincorporated Town affairs: the reverse is true as well. I have seen non-Hastings people at my Village Hall meetings only on those occasions when something came up that affected a neighbor. Why else would a responsible adult choose to spend an evening at these affairs? Compound that with the unpleasantness often on display at Town Board meetings, and our desire to attend is low even when we care about something on the agenda.

The Villages no more control Sonja or Frank or Francis or anyone than the Town controls us. Yes, we make up a bare majority of the Town population, but we are hardly monolithic, and we hardly vote as a block. There is no "central control" that tells people how to vote in the Villages. The Greenburgh Democratic Committee, if anything, are as close to a centralized political control as the Town has and they have been marginally more aligned with unincorporated: and we saw how it's chair did in her run against Feiner. So much for centralized control.

The fact is that the Villages are a sleeping majority, and we really aren't involved in 95% of all decision-making. The stuff that affects us, well, hopefully we wake up to become involved there, but generally we haven't until recently done that either. Enough on that.

You know, there's a back and forth here about whether fees can fully capture the cost of a facility or park. There's a couple of answers to that, but it starts with:

1) the Villages don't care, you shold be able to open the programs and set the fees you think make sense. It's only fair.
2) next is, if you are looking to add participants to a program, make sure that the fees are low enough so they aren't exclusionary, but in the end, that's not our business, set them as you see fit.
3) the next is an argument about marginal revenue. Every additional buck you attract is a buck you didn't have beforehand. The marginal cost of an additional participant, in the end, is not driven by underlying bond costs or historical costs. It's driven by the actual cost incurred to include that person. It's a business decision made by your staff, and, again, it is not the Village's business how you decide it.

In short, the theme here is that how you set fees or who you invite is not our business. It should be yours to decide.

One poster raises a good question if Village participation is really that small. That's a good question, and we should one day find out how that breaks out by program. It would be useful for the overall discussion. More data is always good.

It appears that the Town will be taking a far more deliberative approach to coming up with a modification to Finneran. That's a good thing. It also appears that the rhetoric on this board seems to have evolved into something closer to a discussion. That's a very good thing. There aren't a whole lot of us Villagers interested or knowledgeable enough to post, so we have previoulsy been under-represented and will continue to be so. I'll try when it makes sense, and I'll do my best to maintain a civil conversation. Thank you for everyone trying in return. It speaks well of the direction for us all if we can do this successfully on an ongoing basis. We may not always agree, and sometimes our interests are at cross-purposes, but that doesn't mean spittle has to fly and motives questioned.

Have a good weekend all.; 3/07/2008 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: one thing is clear, many of ardsley's village amenities and its recreation programs are used by residents of unincorporated greenburgh, especially its library.

on the whole this is mutually beneficial. the same is true of many unincorporated greenburgh programs which need village participation to keep going. the same is true of the nature center where it is reported most of the members are from the villages!

thats why an amendment to finneran to legalize these fiscal realities is needed and can be accomplished.; 3/07/2008 2:15 PM
Cool Cal Collected said...: Interesting that people who have not been mugged are so noble in espousing civility and cooperation and the greater good of the "town" and use of resources. This divide and conquer game is symptomatic of the lack of effective leadership that threatens our well being as a town, county, state and nation.; 3/25/2008 9:34 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 263 of 263 Newer› Newest»

Supervisor Feiner

Friday, February 29, 2008

AN OPEN LETTER TO UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS PETER SWIDERSKI...

263 comments:

Contributors

Blog Archive

Links