Sunday, February 24, 2008

TENNIS COURT BUBBLE MAY NEED STATE LEGISLATION

The recent decision in the Taxter Ridge case raises questions about how we can authorize the tennis bubble and other programs that benefit the town. It is possible that we may have to ask the State Legislature to amend the Finneran Law to give the town flexibility to permit programs that allow non-residents to participate, on terms that the Town Board will set. We will discuss this at the work session on Tuesday, February 26.The Board work session begins at 2 PM and is televised live on public access. This meeting will also be streamed on the internet.

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

The state will never approve it. Too many Town residents, outside the village, dont support it. Although these people have no elected representives, the state legislature, which are elected equally by Town and Villagers, will listen.

Anonymous said...

So you would prefer to lose the tennis bubble with its imptovements to the tennis structure and its revenues rather than amend the law to allow it?

Anonymous said...

Where is this tennis bubble - in a village or in Unincorporated Greenburgh? Since it has something to do with Taxter Ridge, I'm guessing it's in Unincorporated Greenburgh, contiguous with one the villages or village school systems.

And, if that's the case, who are the non-residents - village residents or people from cities, other towns and non-Greenburgh villages?

Anonymous said...

"The state will never approve it. Too many Town residents, outside the village, dont support it. Although these people have no elected representives, the state legislature, which are elected equally by Town and Villagers, will listen."

Who said that the Town residents won't support it?

And why this nonsense that they have "no elected representatives?"

Neither of these statements are true. Someone is just trying to being divisive.

PS the bubble would be at Anthony Veteran Park.

Anonymous said...

I guess I am confused. A - Why does the tennis bubble "need" to be open to residents of the Villages? If it doesn't "need" to be open to non-residents of unincorporated Greenburgh, what's the issue? B - If the tennis bubble would be open to the public, including residents of Yonkers, White Plains, etc, does the Finneran Law or any other state statue permit a higher rate to be charged to non-residents of unincorporated Greenburgh?

Unfortunately, all too often the public is only given part of the necessary information in order to make informed comments. How about creating a "comprehensive" white paper (and this won't cost the $400,000 for a Town comprehensive plan) setting forth all of the "issues" (in plain English) and putting it on the Town's web site?

Anonymous said...

3:58 hasn't been reading the papers over the last two years. Here is what the deal is.

The town will sign a contract with Sport Time, which is a company that builds and operates tennis bubles. I assume that you know what that is. Sport Time will improve the tennis facilities at its own cost in Veteran Park and pay rent. What it will do is operate the tennis program during the "off" months when outdoor tennis is impossible. This rent wil be income to the unincorporated area only, the B budget not the A budget. To make it worthwhile for Sport Time it has to be open to everybody in and out of Greenburgh. It doesn't make financial sense for them to do this if they are only allowed to have unincorporated area residents use it. They are a business, after all, and they won't do it unless it makes business sense and that means everybody can come and pay their fees and play tennis all winter long.

Since the Finneran Law requires that town recreatoional facilities must be restricted to unincorporated area residents, the town must get an amendment that gives the town flexibility about residents being allowed to use town facilities.

As far as charging a higher fee to non-residents, that is up to Sport Time. I imagine that they would consider it bad public relations.

But why should anybody care? It will be a money provider to the B budget, not to the A budget. Or is it just the usual anger against the villages that prompts this question.

Anonymous said...

The law could not be changed for Taxter Rd.park but it can be changed for the bubble project.
Why??????????

Anonymous said...

How did you want the law to be changed for Taxter Ridge park? It could have been changed for Taxter Ridge the same way that Feiner is asking for it to be changed now, but Bernstein would have screamed bloody murder and the Town Council would have backed Bernstein. That is why we are two years behind in getting the tennis bubble.

He may still scream bloody murder, even though it gets him nothing but petty revenge for having lost the case.

Anonymous said...

Why will the law be changed for the bubble and not for Taxter ridge.
I thought the law was the law.
Now one can see changes can be made to suit one's fancy.

Anonymous said...

The tennis bubble will reduce my taxes. Go for the state law!

Anonymous said...

The tennis bubble should not be sidelined because of politics. This would be good for everyone.

Anonymous said...

Why are we all so lawsuit happy. Cant we all just get along and stop suing?

hal samis said...

Pandora's Box!

Anonymous said...

Only one person sued, Bernstein. And he lost and cost the town megabucks.

megabucks? said...

please define megabucks.

the real waste was the 10.9 million used to buy taxter ridge which richard garfunkel foolishly calls a neighborhood par. 200 acres is not a neighborhood park richard.

feiner, juettner and abinanti (and probably sleepyhead bronz) all agreed to buy this useless haven for gnats and mosquitos.

now thats megabucks.

juettner must go said...

megastudpity is more like it.

juettner must go in 2009. 18 years of her serving herself at our expense is enough.

run samis run.

Anonymous said...

I gather you early birds- 6:43 and 6:45am are still hung up on Taxter Ridge. The Town of Greenburgh did not spend $10 million on Taxter Ridge.

As I recall there were hundreds of people at meeting after meeting supporting the acquisition of Taxter Ridge. The vote was unanimous and the support came from the State and the County, and those entities paid 2/3rds of the cost. Again, this debate and effort by Danny Gold, and the people of Irvington was started, and well on its way, before I was aware of the issue.

The Town, County, and State must of all felt it was worthwhile to preserve the area as "open land." Or did someone hold a gun to their heads and make them "a deal they couldn't refuse?"

No one, including myself ever referred to it as a neighborhood park. The point I previously made was that all parks, big and small, have a tendency and purpose to serve the direct community that abuts the park.

There is a common community benefit to establish various parks in all sections of a municipality. How come the people of Brooklyn or Queens don't gang up and force the city to sell Central Park? I am sure that statistically few people from those boroughs use that park in comparsion to the local Manhattanites. Of course, as we know, Central Park is not Taxter Ridge. But also the people who live in the area surrunding Taxter Ridge are not very concerned with Central Park!

On the other hand, are these mysterious bloggers really one person, who represents developers that would like to get their hands on another large parcel of land? It seems logical that one possible lawyer could have a vested interest in the development of this parcel. Who knows? Stranger things have happened before!

It seems to me that these Taxter Ridge bloggers "doth protest too much." Why would anyone really care? The $3 million cost is a pittance when compared with the total tax burdens of Greenburgh. I am not denigrating extra expenses added to my tax bill, or others in Greenburgh, but the vast majority of the citizenry that abuts Taxter Ridge was against its development, plain and simple. The dislocation, the pollution, the jammed roads, the expense of sewage lines, the destruction of trees, the jamming of the schools, the potential flooding, the wiring and the cabling costs, and for what?

Can one imagine the clamor from the townies that camp out at Town Hall! The hectoring, the accusations, the sreaming about over-developement the echoing through the night and the studies showing that new houses do not bring revenues to the town would inundate the the planning and zoning boards. It would have been another "circus maximus" for the anti-Feiner CABAL.

This issue is a combination of power and greed. The wannabees want the power, and the "real" opponents of Taxter Ridge want the the land to exploit. What else under the sun is new?

Richard J. Garfunkel

jewel of greenburgh? - hah said...

when bob bernstein and herb rosenberg agree that taxter was a mistake - well - it probably was.

the parcel was never re-appraised after the town passed steep slopes - wetlands legislation making the parcel probably worth about 50% less than the town, county and state paid for it.

apparently garfunkel doesnt read feiner's press releases in which running everyday feiner asserted that the taxter would be greenburgh's central park!

here is what feiner said:

I think this property to Greenburgh is what Central Park is to New York City," said Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner. "It's really the jewel of Greenburgh, and I know that for many, many years, future generations will appreciate the significance of this land."


and here is what danny gold said:


"These woodlands contain many species and a 175-year-old tree that we've been able to preserve," Gold said. "The citizens of our community will enjoy these woods, as will all the citizens of the state, the county and the town."

gold and feiner omitted the part that only residents of unincorporated have to pay for this so called jewel.

Anonymous said...

So, 10:08, what's your problem, that it isn't a jewel or that it is a jewel but you want the whole town to pay for it?

answers said...

its not jewel. and no one should pay for it except danny gold and perhaps the irvington school district.

a golf course is open space too.

so are cemeteries to some extent.

i would also like diane juettner to tell me how one gets to taxter ridge but then she would have to do some work for a change. then when you get there - where do you park? will danny gold let us use his driveway?

Anonymous said...

Why cant we look for a developer to go into a partnership for a golf course for Taxter Ridge? Even if only 9 holes. Allow the developer to allocate tee times first to town, etc and then have 1/2 to public.

Anonymous said...

Gold said the citizens of his community will enjoy the property.well I guess we got the answer for whom the property was purchased with the unincorporated areas paying for it.
We don't care that the tax rate is so small what we see is that both Feiner,the board and above all Gold screwed all of us royally.
Garfunkel get off your soap box you keep saying the same things about the supervisor and the previous board.
Yes we felt sorry for him at that time,but now reality has hit home.
The law was in place for Taxter Rd. park but now for the bubble he is looking to change the law.
Both you and he speak with a forked tongue.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Garfunkel,

The problem with your Central Park analogy is that the governance of New York City has for many, many years been on a district basis. What does that mean? While Manhattan may get a Central Park, Brooklyn gets a Prospect Park, Queens gets its parks and so on and so on.

What the Town of Greenburgh ought to do is to divide up the representaion into four or six districts, plus a Town wide Supervisor's position. Then a lot of this "my backyard" gets the "bennies" would evaporate in an instant.

We can cite how we in the East pay for national parks in the West, but you don't think for a moment that "our" representatives in Congress whenever these actions were funded didn't get something in return, do you? That's the good and maybe bad of geographical / population based representative governments. That's why only looking at one particular issue may not be a good way to try to change things. All of the trade-offs and horse-trading gets lost in history.

Take the "apparent" unfairness that co-ops and condominiums get taxed for real estate taxes at a lower rate than residential properties. The New York City delegation wanted that and in order to get "upstate" support gave up something else, maybe higher support for education upstate and lower education funding to New York City schools. Unless one was personally there, it's hard to tell.

Just some thoughts.

Anonymous said...

anon 4:57

Thank you for your reasonable piece. My analogy regarding Central Park may not be completely or even metaphorically appropriate for Greenburgh or any where else. When Central Park was configured, NYC was only Manhattan and the Bronx and an apartment building on 72nd and the West Side, was so far out of town when it was built in the 1880's, it was called the Dakota. Therefore when the park was open, Brooklyn was a separate city and wouldn't be part of NYC until 39 years later. Therefore the trade-offs were irrelevant. But you are right, peeople in Queens and other boroughs have their parks maintained and paid for by Manhattanites and the reverse.

My thoughts were meant to convey the thought of the "commonweal," or working for the greater good.

I am not defending innately the acquisition of Taxter Ridge, but I can readily understand why the purchase was made and some of the history behind it's acquisition. Rarely, in this super-heated political world of Greenburgh can we have consensus on anything.

My point was that no matter what the Board did (a 5-0 vote) the critics would scream. So let them scream. The issues that divided the Board were emerging for years, as the Board's critics ganged up on the long tenure of Paul Feiner, and his so-called allies on the Board.

The heat generated by the Council of Neighborhoods, and some of their vocal leaders, along with various others, started to divide the Board. Remember the Board were never electorally challenged and their opponent's ulitmate strategy was to separate the Board members from the Supervisor by denying him the Democratic nomination. The issue that they finally promoted was the ill-advised library expansion.

But, be that as it may, Feiner beat back that challenge in 2005 and destroyed it and his Board opponents in 2007. I was a witness to their antipathy towards him and he therefore had no allegiance to their survival. They were well-funded, their message was easily understood, but their last minute slams on the "2005 issues" fell flat this time.

Their slams on "choice," the Tappan Zee Bridge, and linking developer abuse with Morgan, fooled the public in 2005, but not in 2007.

The question for all of us in Greenburgh is park usage, vis-a-vis, the villages and the Town as a whole. It obviously has to be ironed out, and I assume it will be.

The continued litigation threats by Robert Bernstein have nothing whatever to do with fairness. Please understand that reality. No matter what Feiner would do or support, Bernstein would oppose with his litigation threat. If he wants to continue to tie Greenburgh up in the courts for some pyrrhic victory so be it. He has the right to waste his own time and money. He certainly does not have the intestinal fortitude to run for the Board. My sense is that he is intensely disliked.

But we need more constructive and realistic criticism and contributions, not endless campaign diatribes. When I accuse the critics of indulging in the 730-day campaign, they grouse that Feiner campaigns daily! Well it is a two-year term, and frankly it should be a four-year one. We used to have a two year term for governor and that was finally changed in Dewey's time. My sense is that two years is too short, and there should be changes made at the state level.

In my almost six years here I have been exposed to a constant harrangue that almost never lets up. In other towns and cities they are limiting public comment, and they are halting it if it is not germane. Feiner has always championed open government and public comment. He has become the victim of his own largess.

Richard J. Garfunkel

Bernstein is toast said...

The reality is that Bernstein will continue to thrash around, like a dog that has been hit by a car, but that he has no more strength or credibility, The Taxter Ridge reversal exposed his fraud. O'Shea, Preiser and a few others who were with him on his ego-trip will stay with him, but otherwise he is toast.

Anonymous said...

I had the pleasure of reviewing a number of plans regarding the proposed "tennis bubble" for the Town Park, when I was a member of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. As a long-time player of tennis, indoors and out, a new facility in Westchester and especially in Greenburgh would be a welcomed addition to the winter inventory of available courts. There are presently courts in MV, Mamaroneck, Rye, NR, Hastings, and a few other spots. Of course, these courts could be used during the day for some of the high schools and my sense it would be a great for the players of this area also.

Hopefully the problems created by the aggressive litigation we are now experiencing will eventually be resolved. The paying for parks, the qualifications for usage and the overall health of the recreation system here will be much better served by negotiation. I support the excellent work by Commissioner Byrne and I enjoyed thoroughly the time I spent on the Board. Let's make sure that this tennis concedpt gets moving.

Richard J. Garfunkel

garfunkel flunks out said...

garfunkel is factually deficient.
bernstein asked for mediation. the town spent $25,000 on mediation.

even when it was clear the villages would not seriously negotiate, fool on the hill juettner said spend more.

bernstein tried.

richard, your blog postings are really getting embarrassing. im wondering why you left white plains.
i notice its really thrived since you left.

you have a radio show. big whoop.

your mt vernon education is starting to show again.

garfunkel flunks out said...

garfunkel is factually deficient.
bernstein asked for mediation. the town spent $25,000 on mediation.

even when it was clear the villages would not seriously negotiate, fool on the hill juettner said spend more.

bernstein tried.

richard, your blog postings are really getting embarrassing. im wondering why you left white plains.
i notice its really thrived since you left.

you have a radio show. big whoop.

your mt vernon education is starting to show again.

Anonymous said...

I assume Robert Bernstein contributed the last remarks, who else would!

Anonymous said...

By the way, I am proud of my association with Mount Vernon, and the AB Davis HS, which afforded to thousands an excellent education. I am sure that it's graduates could stack up with any community.

By the way the last time I was at the MVHS, I noticed on a memorial plaque, which listed thay over 5000men/women served in WWII from Davis and that over 200 gave their lives. I don't think any one questioned where they came from and their education when they offered their lives and limb for their country.

As to White Plains, I enjoyed my 33years, and I would say they it grew quite well, during that time, under the leadership of a number of Mayors and City Councils of both political parties. Whether it has improved in the last six years because of my move, or inspite of my move, only history can tell. But I am sure that either way my departure had little affect on its current direction. I met Joe Delfino the other day and he asked me when was I moving back! Nice of Joe to ask.

For sure WPs served my family well and my children had an excellent education and are gainfully employed.

As to Mr. Robert Bernstein, I am sure that he has a strong hand in most of these anonymous blog postings that defend his handiwork. If he is leery about coming out and fighting for his positions, so be it.

By the way I sign my name and many of the bloggers obviously do not. Therefore, many readers do not take their positions seriously.

Richard J. Garfunkel

mt vernon calls said...

richard, you are so valuable. i think mt vernon could use you again! johnny's has the best pizza in 914 if you like pizza.

ps - im not bernstein.

pps - still waiting for three examples where diana juettner materially disagreed with paul feiner on any issue of significance. usually she was just rubber stamping whatever he wanted esp while she was using his campaign dough. at least krauss admitted that old dj is disaster and will forever be in atonement for her presence on the town board.

Anonymous said...

Sure Bernstein wanted mediation. He is a smart lawyer and he knew that he could not win in the appeal. He thought that he would get his way and he didn't expect the villages to get in his way. I guess the villages are smarter than Bernstein.

By the way, when is he going to pay the court costs?

Anonymous said...

Richard,

You want the tennis moving?

Why dont you just ask the state that the unincorporated residents pay all taxes and villages have complete access??

ed krauss said...

It warmsmy heart to read Mr. Garfunkle finally admitting that Paul Feiner is the prototype of the 730 day campaigner. Yet even with that admission, there comes a BUT. But Richard says Paul has to run ever two years while council members run every four years.

Dah! If Paul had to run every four years, he'd be the 1460 day cmpaigner. Please don't get me wrong, I admire his energy and dedication to the task of getting reelected. More Greenburgh politicians should try to emulate him...in this respect.
But the job specs for supervisor, include more responsibilities than full time every day, day in day out campaigning.

But it's still nic to hear HIM admit it. I next would like him to bury his use of CABAL, unless he coins an equally irritating word for his group of Feiner groupies.How about the GROUPIES? Pretty catchy don't you think?

One other thing, when one pontificates for as long and as often as Richard does, the probability of errors magnify...the more chances yu get in the field, the more errors you're likely to make.

Since I'm not a captious person by nature I really don't point out his misstatements, only if they rub me the wrong way.

Richard, FYI The Bronx was a part of Westchester until a few generations ago. Not New York City.

Spottime, where I play, in Mamaronek, is a first class operation. One, that would bea tremendous asset to the Town. But wishing will not make it so. All parties(and Idon't mean Democrat and Republican, nor village and unincorporated) wll have to work together.

Onward and upward.and in the immortal words of a philosopher on a barroom/dining room wall,"we are here to drink, make love and live our lives so well that DEATH will tremble to take us.

Anonymous said...

In 1874 the western portion of the present Bronx County, consisting of the towns of Kingsbridge, West Farms, and Morrisania, was transferred to New York County, and to New York City; the three towns were abolished in the process. In 1895 the Town of Westchester and portions of Eastchester and Pelham, similarly were transferred to New York County and City. City Island, New York City's only nautical community, voted to join New York County in 1896. In 1898, the amalgamated City of New York was created, including the Bronx as one of its five boroughs (although still within New York County). In 1912 those parts of the then New York County which had been annexed from Westchester County in the past decades were newly constituted as Bronx County, while keeping its status as a borough of New York City.

The three largest municipalities that border on the Bronx, and were not part of NYC, are MV, incorporated 1853-4, New Rochelle, 1957, and Yonkers, 1872.

When NYC was incorporated in 1898, these cities were part of Westchester, and the Bronx had been part of NYC for many years.

I believe that this happened more than a few generations ago, more like over 100 years!

Richard J. Garfunkel

Anonymous said...

Garfunkel ,again I thank you for a history lesson.
What dors yhis have to do with GREENBURGH?

Anonymous said...

Paul you cannot have it both ways.
You want to by pass the existing law to suit your plan but we who pay for the parks say NO......
Let the unincorporated areas vote on what you are asking for,wepay so we should have plenty of input into this plan and not the villages.

Anonymous said...

The tennis bubble will bring in revenues to the B budget. If Anon 12:14 wants a vote he will be flattened by it.

ed krauss said...

Prissy, prissy, prissy Richard G. A generation is 25 years. A FEW is defined 4-6. Therefore, a FEW "generations" could be between 100-150 years. The fact remains, that recitation of the histort of the formation of NYC, does not alter the fact that "The Bronx," was part of Westchester.

In college I was taught that the best way to communicate in written form is to use :Short Words, Short Sentences, and Short Paragraphs. I was also taught that the spinkling of non sequiturs
in a written piece tend to act as "arresters" slowing down or confusing the reader, or, even causing the reader to stop reading the piece entirely.

Whoever wrote or said "you can never go home again," obviously didn't know Richard J. Garfunkel very well. But then, again, White Plains is not your home Mount Vernon is. I wonder will Clinton Young or Ernie Davis invite you back to live in Mt. Vernon? BTW, did you know that Howard Wolfson(political advisor to Mrs. Clinton)'s mother went to A.B. Davis?

I'm really surprised, you compliment others who sign their names to their blog entries, but omit to mention my name even once. I don't understand, I mention you occasionally. Are you prejudiced?

Anonymous said...

Pardon me for reciting a small part of lower Westchester's history. It was in response to a blogger remarks regarding the history of Westchester. By the way, sorry for the typo, the incorporation of New Rochelle was 1857 and not 1957.

With regards to Supervisor's conduct in office, please do not confuse my description of his activities, vis-a-vis a two-year term with the "730 Day Campaign." All good office holders devote some time and energy to constituent services. Supervisor Feiner, like one of his early mentors, Richard L. Ottinger, believes in the non-partisan approach to dealing with the needs of his constituents. The public admires and rewards office holders, who not only work on the larger issues that face their constiuency, but on the individual concerns and questions that many citizens have. I do not regard these efforts as "campaigning" or cyncical "staged events." They are part of the personal touch the average citizen respects and values in their representatives. The Supervisor also does solve problems!

The "730-Day" campaign is a methodology and strategy that reflects itself with a constant never-ending barrage of criticism, justified or not. It has nothing to do with idealogy or political philosophy. It is the strategy of character assassination and the planned and choreographed attempt to defame, ridicule and demean a duly elected public official. In other words, no matter what Feiner did or said, he is wrong!

It is this type of conduct that drives people from office, and convinces others, who are qualfied, intelligent and bright, not to seek office. Why should they be bothered? Why should they expose themselves to constant abuse and personal attacks?

Maybe it is people, like our local CABAL, who are ruining our political system every where.
In truth most are turned off by the conduct of these individuals.

Of course criticism is important and free speech is a right of every citizen. No one should censure political discourse. We should work for openess and transparency in government, and I am sure most here believe that the Supervisor believes in that process and philosophy completely.

Richard J. Garfunkel

Anonymous said...

Garfunkel is an OK person, but PLEASE can we have less of his lectures.

Anonymous said...

I think paul needs to have all of the town in a village, form villages out of unincorproated greenburgh and stop all this nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ed,
The correct term to describe those who believe the source of all evil in Greenburgh is the "CABAL" is PAULITBURO.

Anonymous said...

...why are these small band of activists critics in Greenburgh so smart, and the electorate so dumb?

Must be that elections should be done away with and only the careerists who haunt Hillside Avenue every other Wednesday know all...!

about last night said...

the angry voices from unincorporated (led by a long past her time) ella preiser should be ignored.

what a motley crew of no nothing flunkies who should learn to dress.

kevin and sonya (and judy) did a great job in trying to keep some order.
francis was missing in action and failed to tell preiser he represents all the town residents not just her - the so called goddess of municipal minutae.

the town needs some flexibility to address some wrinkles created by finneran which in reality the town never fully adhered to.

this will benefit the town and its residents - both in the villages and outside.

paul, sonya, kevin and judy get a big hurrah for standing up to the wanna be bullies and viciousness coming from certain quarters.

ps. ms weems - it was embarassing watching you.

Anonymous said...

...if you think Weems has aproblem did anyone really listen to Wielke and Brown. Are those two boobs for real. No one could have a clue what she was driviling about, and LB is brain dead at best. They are the best advertisement for the 2007 results. Who needs those two clowns lecturing anyone...?

weems said...

i agree somewhat - wielke - was pathetic

lorin brown is just angry at feiner & co but he was right to some extent about the fairview fire district.

this $100,000 should not go to them
but maybe something should be done to reimburse them for expenses they incurred in expectation of getting the money when the deal was made.

krauss and others are correct - the money belongs to the entire town not just one fire district.

westhelp balkanization must stop.

it was wrong then, its wrong now.

John Malone said...

Why don't we move Westhelp to the property on Dromore Rd. and fill the Westhelp property by the college with seniors and onto the tax rolls

Anonymous said...

I don't think that "weems said" is pat weems. The blog sounds too rstional for it to be pat weems.

Anonymous said...

I believe this “scare” scenario, as posted on the Town Website, is overly broad, and Paul’s proposed cure offers no protections to the residents of unincorporated Greenburgh. Of course the Villages will support this. They control the Town Board and will tax unincorporated Greenburgh for Parks and Recreation facilities and then vote to open up all facilities to Village residents. Reasonable people would provide as follows:

1. Unincorporated Greenburgh teams play home games/meets at unincorporated Greenburgh facilities. Those same teams play an equal number of away meets at facilities of those same opponents. For example, if an Ardsley Village team plays an Unincorporated Greenburgh team, they play once on Greenburgh field, once on Ardsley field.
2. Unincorporated Greenburgh residents who are members of have reasonable guest privilidges, and can bring guests.
3. People who are not residents of unincorporated Greenburgh can not have memberships at unincorporated facilities or be on unincorporated Greenburgh teams. The volunteers, first responders and handicapped must not be given memberships, unless resident in unincorporated Greenburgh.

This is how most municipalities work. So should unincorporated Greenburgh.

Paul, you can not have it both ways. Either the entire Town pays for Parks and Recreation, or only the unincorporated pays but only they can use. Paul you created this problem. Had you not gone after Taxter Ridge, people would not be so upset.

I urge all residents of unincorporated Greenburgh to contact their state representatives and state that Paul’s proposed expansion of the Finnerman Law is totally one-sided and unacceptable. To rush through a one-sided proposal is unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:09
Please give us the names to contact concerning the plan that Paul wants to put in force as to change the Finnernan law.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"paul, sonya, kevin and judy get a big hurrah" for making it clear that no one in unincorporated greenburgh has any rights. It is truly being a second class citizen.

Anonymous said...

Is it possible? No, it's probable. The Wizard of Watch Hill, The Arnold Toynbee of Tarrytown, The Wonderous Weeman's Wikipedia has erred once again.

His 8:36 morning lecture stated, "In 1874 the western portion of the present Bronx, Kingsbridge, West Farms and Morrisania...."The facts are: Kingsbridge is in the western part of the Bronx. West Farms-one can understand how the big man tripped over this trick name- is in the center of the Bronx and closer to the east. And, Morrisania is in the south Bronx. Geography may not be one of his strong points, or is it map reading.

ed krauss said...

Eventhough I have a Yeshivah education, with an emphsis on the Talmud, no one would confuse me with Solomon. But it's never too late to try.

I am not a lawyer and so I'm not sure this can be done, however, here goes.

Let's say we amend the Finneran Law as it pertains to the Anthony Veteran Park only. Then we ask the Legislature to allow the Town to permit non-unincorporated residents to play in the bubble. Finally, the income and the expenses for the Sporttime bubble become part of the B budget. In that scenario the villagers and others can play tennis while not incurring any expenses (other than the court time costs). While the unincorporatd residents will lighten the load on their having to foot the bill for all the parks and recs.

It seems to me each side comes out ahead.

As far as amending the "F"Law to make it less Draconian regarding guests, visitors and the like to unincorporated funded facilities, projecting out the positive revenue flow from the bubble, should more than compensate and ameliorate the hard feelings.

We are not like Korea where north and south may be related but think in foreign languages. I'm certain "uni's" have "village" friends and the reverse is true. so let's look at the pragmatic approach to problem solving and not the "if I can't have it, I'll stop anyone else from having it," approach.

Please don't hold back. I can take it. If some in the unincorporated feel I'm giving in to the "Villagers," or some of the "villagers" feel I'm not giving enough to them, It's only a thought, and you don't have to split the baby either.

Anonymous said...

Ed, I respectfully do not agree with your analysis. The fixed costs of Parks and Recreation are huge. They should be shared, or facilities not shared.

The threat of no guests will be met with a temporary restraining order. It is outrageous for Paul to limit legitimate use of Veterans to hold unincorporated Greenburgh hostage. And why is he not demanding that the exisitng nonresident memberships be stopped. Oh, because they are held by Village residents.

Anonymous said...

Ed, Why dont we trade? Have Ardsley allow unincorporated Greenburgh use of their indoor pool? What other village facilities could be opened up? Why does unincorporated Greenburgh have to share and not the villages.

And I dont have faith that the Board will treat unincorporated Greenburgh fairly. An open ended change to the Finnerman law is not a good idea.

bravo krauss said...

bravo ed

you have exposed the ella preissers of the world for what they are - whatever paul is for - they are against even if it shoots them in the foot.

ella please go home and stay there.

ps- when you come out in public - look presentable

Anonymous said...

Ed, Everyother municipal pool allows guests. What readng of the Finnerman law (I assume you have read it) would even imply that RESIDENTS of unincorporated Greenburgh would not be allowed to have guests. Just because Paul says something doesnt mean it is the law. And it certainly doesnt mean it is fair.

Anonymous said...

Well Ed, I see you a friend in Mr. 9:38. Birds of a feather.

Anonymous said...

Ed, even if I agreed with you, Paul's proposal is so broad, we could end up with an overcrowded Veterans, insufficient and unfair charges to Village residents, etc.

Anonymous said...

Ed, if the Town Board cared, they would sit down and negotiate, instead of trying to strong arm unincorporated Greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

9:43 has a point. Let's simplify the whole thing. Expunge Finneran and operate the Town as contemplated by the original law - to wit, parks and recreation are a town-wide amenity and as such are paid for by ALL town residents.

Anonymous said...

I dont disagree with a town wide aproach. And even if the state were to amend the Finerman law (doubtful, when it was enacted, it had undivided support from residents), doubt it will happen by this summer.

Get real said...

I suppose that the bloggers who raise hell about Paul's proposal never read the Finneran law and have not read the court decision. I have, so let me educate them.

The decision says that unincorporated town parks and recreational facilities must be restricted to residents of unincoporated Greenburgh. That's it. It won't be repealed and however much people don't like it, that's the law.

Why do people think that Paul's proposal is a gift to the villages? A village representative said that the villages don't want the Finneran Law amended, they like it just as it is.

It is the unincorporated area which needs the amendment, so that it can continue its recreation programs and have the tennis bubble. Plus maybe things like the tennis bubble in the future. It looks like what Paul is asking for is theat the town board have the right to relax the residency limitation to benefit the unincorporated area. The proposal doesn't give anything away. it leaves it up to the Town Board, which we elected. Are you nuts to think that they will open everything up to the villages and to the world?

It seems to me that the villages are being quite nice to support the proposal. It gets them nothing and saves the unincorporated from a disaster. Oh sure, the Town Board may decide to let the villages into a park or a facility, they have done it for years, and they charge for it. Maybe the Town Board can charge more. But aside from the displays of anger, what is really wrong about this.

Of course Ella and her friends had a fit. Imagine something being done without their participation. Tut tut.

Bloggers, get real. We in unincorporated need this amendment and we need it fast.

Anonymous said...

The bubble is to be open to Village residents, so please dont call me a nut for saying that the intent of the amendment is to help the village residents. Plus Paul's amendment would give him carte blanche to open Veterans to Village residents. The villages are being nice -- give me a break. The Villages control the Board and want use of the facilities without paying for them.

Anonymous said...

The Villages arent being asked to pay their fair share -- if they want to use Parks and Rec facilities, let them be part of the A budget. Why not have a referendum open to only unincorporated residents on this matter.

In the meantime, unincorporated residents should contact their state senator and assemblyman.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the answer is Veterans should have the ability to elect its own Board, with only members from the unincorporated area voting. The problem is that putting the power in the Town Board, which only cares about Village residents, is not fair. We had a 20% tax increase, and the Town Board doesnt care.

ella is divisive and angry said...

ella and her ilk are the angry voices of the past.
one has to laugh how she fawns over mr sheehan who gave her a lame excuse as to why there is no letter to the state comptroller about which budget the young center should be in.


unincorporated greenburgh follows her to their peril.

unincorporated needs finneran amended. ella needs to get to the mall for some new clothes.

her griping is wearing thin.she has become a hack for anything paul feiner is against even if he is right.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know first whether it is the unincorporated's best interest to continue to allow non-resident first responder and handicapped memberships at Veterans. I think that is a litmus test. If the Town Board see that as in the interest of the TOv, then this proposal of Pauls is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I am afraid that Paul will say any dues paying member is of benefit to Veteran. Why should some of us have to pay taxes to support Parks and REc and some not, if he wants all of the Town to get useage. Not fair.

Anonymous said...

Paul, Does you gated community have a pool I think it would be in the interest of your gated community to charge a fee and take the first responders and handicpped as memebers. Absurd, yes. Well think about it.

ignore the angry and ill informed said...

paul's proposal is both fair and reasonable. it gives the town board flexibility to seek additional sources of revenue.

the worry about a crowded veteran park is nonsense. if the park is deemed too crowded, the town board can restrict the use to unincorporated.

the facts are otherwise - use of veteran is down even after the town board let in first responders.

we see what the opponents are - haters who would cut their nose to spite their face.

town board - dont be intimidated by these angry bitter and selfish who are led by ella and carol w.

the town needs to amend finneran.

Anonymous said...

The ignorance is atonishing. Paul's amendment doesn't open Veteran Park.

We see what happens when you have a rigid inflexible law. Do we have to go to the State anytime something needs to be tweaked? The only things that makes sense is to give the town board flexibility.

Where dis all this hate come from. From the same people who make demand after demand. Put the hate away, for heaven's sake.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:31 am

...the hate comes from a willful group of power wannabees that are jealous that their little issues are ignored or damned with faint praise...

Just to listening to one Lorrin B. is excrutiating. He is an exercise for all who crave for pathos management. It is almost criminal to listen to him without weeping. He verbally flails like a tiny bird cover in oil. He is the most pathetic and agonizing example of protest without purpose. Please go away before the men in the white suits come along with restraining garb. In his own weird way he gives authenticity to some of the other mental midgets who verbally soil themselves, time and time again.

Others like Carol W., Ella P, are even more hard to fathom. They seem to have once had a brain, so what is their excuse....!

Let's start working out these formulas and move on...!

Eventually a new generation of folk here will take over and the present clowns who jolly-up the cable waves and town hall will be gone, and good riddance...!

Anonymous said...

By the way the 20% tax increase has little to do with these park discussions. Even the library cost, as inflated and unnecessary as the whole project was and is, pales in comparison to the other fixed costs of running Greenburgh. The unincorporated part of the town pays the lion's share of the taxes because they get almost 95% of the service. The villages pay a tiny amount to the town as a whole for their limited services. Duh! The tax increases reflect a lot more than Taxter Ridge, the library and other silly subjects of this bloggosphere.

The shrinkage in tax revenues, (the economy stupid,) the abandonment of commercial property and yearly contractional increases in labor and benefits is affecting Greenburgh, not unlike the state, and over 20 other states that are running huge deficits, and are a facing fiscal crisis. (Corzine offered toll increases, the public complained, so he will fire 3000+ workers and close other departments and start to limit services. He's a succesful businessman, but also a Democrat!)

The answer to the people worried about high taxes making their lives miserable is to demand a cut in services, that is where the bulk of our expenses are connected! Where do you budget slashers want to cut first? Police, garbage pick-up, recreation, the courts?

There's now a budget advisory committee. Find the committee, attend the meetings, research each line of the budget, get your speech ready, grab the microphone, and say your peace. Maybe what you say will resonate. Maybe we need less police, it is possible. Cut back re-cycling and garbage pickup to once a week,(bag it and store it). Maybe the pools and parks should be closed on Mondays and Wednesdays in the summer. Open the contracts with the unions and start to re-negotiate the salaries, increases and benefits. Raise user fees. Rent out parts of town hall and sell off the library and let it be run privately. While you are at it, increase class room size in Central 7 and Edgemont. I am sure the smart kids will learn with 30+ in a room and the others will make do as they did in the past.

These are only suggestions, and they are not to be seen as sarcastic. They are potential ways to cut expenses. Will any of these actions make life less desirable in Greenburgh? Possibly yes! I am sure that the minority of Republicans and conservatives, with a big or small "c" would love this "pay as you go" approach. Many citizens do not use the parks, are too old to play baseball, live in apartments, co-ops, or leafy neighborhoods where crime is very low anyway. So a slight increase in a robbery, here or there, will be marginally acceptable. That is what we will be dealing with, marginal change!

The Young and Veteran's center should raise their fees to pay their own way. Maybe the fees should be raised high enough to pay for the staff, the programs, the debt service, the heat and the lighting. It could be done that way. Maybe they should be run like a club? If attendence drops below the margin to sustain them, close them down and sell off the property. This seems like the Gingrich, Reagan, Bush, Romney and McCain philosophy that has worked so well in the GOP dominated parts of the country. Just keep cutting, most money is spent on the old and the young who have few votes. Let the workers quit and get new ones. It has been done before! (Remember Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers!)

Maybe the right-wing is correct. Maybe the flat-tax Hucklebee has something going. Maybe we need to get back to pay as one goes. The richer our society becomes, the more tax revenues and the more largess. Maybe we should cap all of our spending to 1% growth per year and tell our workers to take it or leave it. As Bush says, put the money back in your pockets.

These are some solutions, not idyll chatter. it will be interesting to see all who agree with these draconian alternatives. In a pinch it could be done.

samis is just a start said...

amen. when a supplier wants to sell to walmart, they go to bentonville and make a pitch. walmart digs deep into the suppliers chain and wrings savings so they can sell things at the lowest price.

we need a walmart to scour our budgets, end the triplication of services, create ways to measure productivity and use, and report.

if we simply take a phone book and cut out one third of the blue pages do you really think anyone would know?

the amount of waste in local, county, state and federal government is staggering.

we need a revolution in the head.

the culture of waste and leaving everything to hal samis must come to an end if we are to survive.

ed krauss said...

To 9:41, please elaborate. I don't know what you're referring to. Since you refer to 9:38 as Mr., you know more than I do about the "bird."
(;$3, it's been a long time, if ever, Town Park was overcrowded. But that's a small handlable problem.
9:52, the original , pre-Finneran Law, still had parks and recs in the "B" budget.
Regarding the ways to cut costs, therefore taxes, Walmart should'nt
be the model for a government. Walmart is a ruthless, 19th century employer: low wages, no health benefits, lousy treatment of employees. With respect to vendors, they extract the bone marrow.

Government can't be run on a Return On Investment basis, because there are line items with no ROI; i.e. health benefits, star programs, subsidized housing etc. A strict bottom line approach would result in death, or at least starvation. Profligate spending should be curtaled. Indescriminate spending should be stopped. Examining expenses should be done via cost accounting and "absolute need" imperatives.
Although the young and the old are not "profit centers," we should never forget the old were contributing citizens and the young will be. Helping the poor help themselves will also add to the common good.

We should start drawing the line on pork barrel funds, "one hand washes the other" bills, and the outrageous spending projects like
building "a highway to nowher." Yes it hapened in upstate New York near Lake Placid.

It was good reading genuine alternatives to my suggestion delivered without rancor or finger pointing...for the most part.

It's our Town, so let's get involved and help it grow more efficiently.

criticism of walmart unbalanced said...

If you wear contacts, read this:

BENTONVILLE, Ark. and DRAPER, Utah – January 17, 2008 – In the latest move to help drive down healthcare costs, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) today announced a long-term agreement with 1-800 CONTACTS that will bring contact lenses to more Americans at lower prices. The alliance combines Wal-Mart savings and the convenience and high quality care of independent eye doctors located in nearly 3,000 Wal-Mart Stores and Sam’s Clubs with 1-800 CONTACTS’ convenience and customer support to help customers save money and live better, healthier lives

ella out of touch said...

ella doesnt have email but im sure francis sheehan is reading these posts.

francis, please tell ella she is out of touch, that she is filled with her own dubious importance and has become consumed with a fatal condition - opposing in a knee jerk manner everything feiner is for. believe it or not, sometimes he is right.

ella, let your fans worship you elsewhere. but not at town board meetings.

ps - the blogger who advised you to get some new clothes was right.

Anonymous said...

The remarks about spending, taxes, and the budget speak accurately to what portends for the future.

I do not particularly agree with the expense cuts recommended by an earlier blogger. But, we will have to face the reality that we may not be "the people of plenty" forever and a day.

The expense end is connected directly to new taxes and the ever-growing budget creep that government, both educational and municipal offer. Eventually all services, benefits and expenditures must be examined. The example that Mr. Samis offered has some merit. It is true that government cannot be run on a "bottom line" basis alone, but government also must deal with the obvious reality that a continuation of high property taxes will drive more of the middle class out of the town and region.

The question going forth, which our Board must deal with, is the quality of life issue. Services vs tax-relief, or a cut in service, higher fees, bigger classrooms, etc.

Somewhere down the line if the economy stays rotten, difficult choices will have to be made. If they are not, the other party in town may have a resurrection, and their message may eventually be appealing.

I hope for a better economy, but if not, I hope a sense of realism to seep into the management of the town.

Richard J. Garfunkel