Thursday, December 11, 2008


NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo released a proposal to authorize citizens to initiate petitions to consolidate/dissolve local government entities in NYS. If 10% of the people in a jurisdiction or 5,000 voters sign a petition there would be a referendum.
It is very important that the concept be expanded to county governments. Voters should have the ability to petition to elminate, consolidate, require sharing at all levels of government--including county government. This could save taxpayers significant dollars and reduce our property taxes. A new group: has been formed. Our committee is contemplating life without county government. Connecticut abolished county government in 1960. Rhode Island has no county government. And, Massachusetts authorized county governments to go out of business in the mid 1990s--and many county governments decided to dissolve.
The Attorney General's proposal is a step in the right direction --let the people initiate consolidation, dissolution of local governments.

Home > Media Center > 2008 > December 11th
State’s Patchwork Quilt of over 10,500 Governmental Entities Buries Residents with Nation’s Highest Taxes and Outdated Services
New Law Proposes to Eliminate Legal Barriers that Make it Virtually Impossible for Citizens to Reform Local Government
ALBANY, N.Y. (December 11, 2008) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo outlined today a new legal proposal to give communities across the state the power to reform local governments. As the current fiscal climate continues to financially squeeze communities and residents across the state, Cuomo’s proposal is designed to cut government waste and reduce taxes. Currently, the state is home to over 10,500 governments that saddle residents with the nation’s highest taxes and leaves the state with layers of antiquated government entities and special districts.

Cuomo today announced he will work with Gov. David Paterson, leaders of the state Legislature, government reform groups and local government leaders across New York to introduce a comprehensive legislative package to streamline the often Byzantine and cumbersome process of consolidating local governmental entities, including the myriad special districts across the state.

“Despite New Yorkers drowning for decades in some of the nation’s highest taxes, local leaders have been blocked from reforming local government in an effort to cut government waste and reduce the tax burden,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “During this economic crisis, leaders have an historic opportunity to fundamentally reform this state’s patchwork quilt of local government entities. These layers upon layers of taxing entities have a chokehold on state residents, and antiquated and arcane laws governing them perpetuate government inefficiency. Our goal is to reform those laws so communities, where appropriate, can reduce local government burden and reduce the cost of living in this great state.”

In all, there are more than 10,500 governmental entities imposing taxes and fees across New York State. This includes towns, villages, districts and special districts such as water, sewer and lighting districts.

Attorney General Cuomo’s Proposal Compared to Existing Law
Existing Law
Attorney General’s Proposal

Multitude of confusing laws scattered throughout the Town Law, Village Law, General Municipal Law, Municipal Home Rule Law and Election Law.
Single law applicable to all local government entities, which eliminates irrational inconsistencies and anachronisms in existing law

Confusing and inconsistent procedures to consolidate or dissolution, which vary depending on the type of local government entity involved
Uniform and simplified consolidation/dissolution procedures that comprehensively address transition issues.

Disempowered governing bodies are barred from initiating process with respect to certain kinds of local government entities
Empowered governing bodies can initiate consolidation/dissolution process for all local government entities.

Disempowered citizenry are barred from initiating process for certain kinds of local government entities.
Empowered citizens can initiate consolidation/dissolution process for all local government entities.

Confusing and hyper-technical process frequently leading to litigation and/or disqualification both of signatures and of whole petitions.
Simplified petition process and petition form for citizens to initiate consolidation/dissolution process

Higher and wildly different signature requirements depending on the kind of local government entity involved.
Uniform signature requirement of 10% or 5,000, whichever is less, to initiate consolidation/dissolution process.

Must own taxable real property to petition for or vote on proposed consolidation/dissolution of certain local government entities.
Abolish all land owning requirements to petition for or vote on proposed consolidation/dissolution

Counties barred from abolishing outright inefficient or moribund local government entities.
Counties empowered to transfer and abolish local government entities subject to mandatory referendum requirements.


Anonymous said...

why would a person who cant take care of a town want to do away with county government. Is this to take attention off of yourself.

Anonymous said...

I am all for getting rid of the Town. All parts of Town not in a Village will join one. Let Ardsley and Egemont join and they can stop fighting over Veterans. Let Elmsford and Fairview join and they can have TDYCC.

hal samis said...

Actually, let's take this seriously but instead apply it closer to home, in Greenburgh. It is no secret that a movement is underway to field three candidates for next year and, upon their win, to take control of the Town Board.

Now that we have experienced living under the rule of "just five votes", let's return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when "just three votes" was all that was needed. Life can't get worse than seeing the Feiner team in action.

Fall 2009 means bye bye to Feiner, Juettner and Sheehan.

January 2010, taxpayers will witness a sea change in how Greenburgh conducts business.
Like observing the law for starters.

And by January 2012, the remainder of the Feiner team will be history.

The only message new faces need to leave on voters doorsteps is this:
"We pledge to vote affirmatively at every stage required to turn control of day-to-day operations over to a professional manager."

Enough is enough. "We're angry and we're not gonna take it anymore!"

Once Greenburgh is straigtened out,
residents will have the luxury of examining further up the ladder.

And when the Town Board sends in the faithful to move the blog postings off this topic, we'll be right there to bring it back.

The weapons of mass destruction are not hidden. They are sitting on the dais flanked by their enablers.

Open government, Democracy, Freedom of Speech: 2008 marks the year they died in Greenburgh. May we have a few lines of silence?


veteran pool analyzed said...

ardsley is not fighting edgemont over veterans.

the villains in this story are mostly sad apartment dwellers in hartsdale or other mean spirited and bitter types in various parts of unincorporated greenburgh who harbor all sorts of grudges that go back decades. these pathetic types have so little going for them that they hold on to limited access to veteran park pool as the only saving grace to their otherwise inconsequential lives by seeking to believe in a fantasy that by keeping others out thye are members of a private club.

i suspect any villager that would want to use veteran pool park would pay well for the right even if only limited to weekdays when its under 90 degrees outside and not too crowded.

but the gatekeepers, in denial of the fact that the pool runs at a large deficit and needs millions of dollars in repairs, cling to their greenburgh equivalent of religion and guns by keeping the gates closed even if it means the pool itself will have to cut back its hours of operation or close.

some of these poor souls are so angry they even begrudge first responders from the villages who can use the pool under a kind town policy even though these same first responders would act to save the lives of the gatekeepers (found on the town recreation board) without asking where they live or what school district they are in.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see a new platform of people that:

1. Supports reduced salaries for town supervisor and council.

2. Appt of Town Manager.

3. Firm committment to no "NO-SHOW" jobs.

4. Firm committment to no "NO Bid" contracts.

We can disagree about A/B budget. But we CAN agree on integrity.

Anonymous said...

Cn we petition to dissolve Feiner? Oh yes, it's called Nov 2009 Election Day.

just the opposite needed said...

and what should the salary be for the town manager?

a platform that does not address A/B budget items is like the current town board - it cannot face up to any problems - instead it runs away

until we reach nirvana, only better salaries will possibly attract better candidates for the town board.

once we have those folks in office, they might wisely put in a town manager form of government

a candidate that can so no to things like westhab, valhalla school district, ugly walls on central avenue, dumb things like taxter ridge and divisive things like tdycc is a candidate worth supporting.

just say no said...

no to swat and nutrition programs that feed other towns and things like xposure should be added to the list.

Anonymous said...

I have no issue with county government, but I would like to see townships eliminated. Cities and villages suffice wihout the extra layer of the antiquated township concept. State - counties - cities/villages ... very simple, with counties assisting municipalities with efforts to collaboration with services.

Anonymous said...

I wish the town's supervisor would focus more on the town. Storm grates throughout the town have been clogged with debris for months. Flooding occurring tonight in various neighborhoods should be directly blamed on the ongoing neglect by town management.

Anonymous said...

How much will you pay the Town Manager? How much will you pay the Supervisor?
How much does the Port Chester manager earn?
Won't my taxes go up with your additional hires?

Anonymous said...

Hal: If you run for the Town Council and if you get elected what will you do if a citizen attends the Town Board meetings and starts disrupting the Town Board meetings like you do? How will you and the new council act?

Anonymous said...

I would suppose that if Hal were on the board, citizens might not have to be disruptive as they will have had an opportunity to speak freely, ask questions, express concerns, and have a board that respectifully responds as it will have noting to hide, and genuinelly cares for ALL of it's residents.

Anonymous said...

what about all the money that comes from the county towards greenburgh. Such as buying the Hartsbrook dump, taxter road. The county pays part of the salary for the individuals working on these sites and you want to abolish county government. This would mean more cost to town residents. Think before you talk.

term limits needed said...

what greenburgh needs is term limits- otherwise you get the likes of feiner and juettner for 20 years!

Anonymous said...

I guess Feiner wants county govt dissolved before the county DA finishes it work re the no-show jobs at TDYCC,

Anonymous said...

Um, no.

If would cost us much more money to maintain our county parks and trails ourselves not to mention how inept we are at maintaining what we already have.
I wish Mr. Feiner would grow up already. He's like a spoiled child who is not happy unless he can claim all things his.
Very disturbing.

employment wanted said...

when feiner gets a real job, then maybe he will grow up.

but who would hire him?

Disgruntled Greenburgher said...

Consolidating governmental layers has real appeal; right up until one needs to decide which layers are superfluous.
I can't imagine there would be a lot os support for dissolving the villages - yet the economic argument for consolidation would seem to work best at that level. Mr Feiner brags about how well and cheaply the Town does things - why aren't the villages anxious to turn over their duplicative operations to him? Police, sanitation, parks and recreation, as well as the social services component of Town government could all be run more efficiently and less expensively as single departments rather than the current six villages and the Town. Combining seven police forces into a single, unified command would seem to be the quickest and easiest way to save big money fast. Reducing seven departments of public works to one with a larger population base seems like an easy call too. Of course anyone suggesting combining the six village Parks and Recreation department into one Town-wide department might find serious opposition from the "save Finneran" movement which would quickly find itself without a raison d'etre - Townwide parks with free access to all and paid for by all; what a revolutionary idea; and a whole lot less expensive than seven separate segregated systems.
The only open question seems to be who would be eligible to vote for such consolidation. Would a simple majority of town-wide voters be able to dissolve Irvington? Or would it be only Irvington voters who could vote themselves out of existence? What if it made economic sense, but only if all the villages were dissolved?
Doing away with County government isn't in your best interests either - Scarsdale, White Plains, Yonkers and North Castle are unlikely to accept the poor quality of management demonstrated by Greenburgh as an acceptable standard for a neighbor without a County to intervene on their behalf.
On second thought Mr Feiner, you probably should be vehemently opposed to any thoughts of consolidation - the very idea destroys any reason for your continued holding of public office.

a powerful team said...

samis and bernstein are a powerful team.

if you took bernstein's article in the scarsdale inquirer about greenburgh's budget mess and samis' comment on the greenburgh public library opening article on the lohud (journal news) website where he exposes diana juettner for the fraud she is as well as the misdeeds of the other town board fools such as francis sheehanigans, and sent these two items to every greenburgh voter, i could not imagine anyone who is up for re-election in 2009 getting any support.

samis and bernstein have essentially shown that greenburgh is in chapter 11 bankruptcy and needs a new team to replace the current town board.

shameless in greenburgh said...

juettner, sheehan and feiner are up for re-election in 2009 assuming they are running.

in other societies and cultures, when leaders have failed miserably as these three have, the right thing to do would be to resign from office.

these three have no shame.

doing the right thing is apparently a thing of the past in greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

I am sure that nobody in any of the villages would agree to dissolve and become part of unincorporated Greenburgh. I am sure that they are happy that they are nor part of unincorporated Greenburgh, seeing what has been going on.

Hal Samis would be a good member of the Town Board. he is rough but he speaks the truth and cares about serious service. Bob Bernstein is another story. He is divisive and dishonest most of the time and if he runs the villages will vote for Mickey Mouse over Bob Bernstein.

not bernstein or samis said...

the suggestion was not that bernstein or samis run for office - thats their call

but anyone who wants to run has a tailor made platform to run on courtesy of samis and bernstein.

as for bernstein - why the personal attack? no one on the town board has been able to counter his arguments on the nutrition program that loses 100s of thousands of dollars each year.

both bernstein and samis opposed the purchase of taxter ridge altho for different reasons.

taxter ridge is the most divisive and useless purchase the town has ever made.

you want a better town - elect candidates who are as right as often as bernstein and samis.

Anonymous said...

I liked the part of the budget hearing when Feiner announced that contrary to what his critics were saying, he was NOT cutting snow removal next year, and then Bernstein pops up and quotes from Feiner's budget showing that Feiner was in fact cutting $50,000 from the snow removal budget next year. Divisive and dishonest are Feiner's callling cards.


There are no cuts in snow removal. We are estimating the amount that is needed. If there are more snow storms than anticipated we will take from contingency. PAUL FEINER

Fuzzy Feiner Math or Snow Job said...

From Feiner's budget at page 102, entitled, "Highway: Snow Removal":

Budget 2008 $674,416.
Budget 2009 $627,245.

Amount of budget cut in 2009 for snow removal: $47,171

When Feiner says he's not cutting snow removal in 2009, who does Feiner think he's kidding?

Anonymous said...

So when Feiner cuts police overtime and doesn't leave room for the police to replace next year the six to nine officers who have left, he is just estimating the amount of crime Greenburgh will have? Will he take from contingency funds if there's more crime than he estimates?

And when Feiner cuts funds for leaf removal, which he says, is he just estimating that fewer leaves will fall next year? Will he take from contingency funds if more leaves fall than he estimates?

Do you get the feeling that Greenburgh's highest elected official is being dishonest and divisive?

Anonymous said...

County and village managements have good performance records. Unincorporated management does not. The county could be an agent for actively promoting collaboration among villages. The unincorpotated township can become a city or three villages. Dissolving Greenburgh township should be a priority.

NOT an accountant but.... said...

I'll bet the 2008 snow removal budget is padded. What we would need to know is what the actual expenditure is so far for 2008.maybe look at actual expenditures for 2007 too.

This usually a line item that does get padded as no one can predict how sever a winter we may have.
If we budget too little we will need to take $ from another line to compensate.

What I'd like to know is if 2008 is padded, where has the extra money been moved to?

Anonymous said...

Greenburgh has a triple A bond ratng. Scarsdale does not. Most communities in Westchester are not managed as efficiently.

Anonymous said...

Scarsdale provides services. They pick up leaves every 15 days. My street got leaves picked up once all fall. Paul doesnt care, he lives in a gated community.

Anonymous said...

My buddy Andrew Cuomo should be looking into how do we get rid of the mess we have here in Greenburgh.
Forget about county government,let him clean up this yard first.

Anonymous said...

What mess? Greenburgh is a good town. Don't change it.

Town problems getting worse daily said...

Greenburgh at good town? Let's review the bidding: The TDYCC is under police investigation for payroll fraud and no-show jobs. Fortress Bible Church is suing the town for violating federal law and could collect as much as $5.7 million. The Court of Appeals is hearing argument next month on whether the Town's charging only unincorporated Greenburgh for parks open town-wide is constitutional. The town's unincorporated area is experiencing a 30% tax hike, with cuts in essential services, such as police, sanitation, snow removal and leaf pickup, while non-essential services, like a $100,000 gift to the Fairview Fire District and an after school program that could have been obtained tax-free are not cut at all. A flood study shows that East Hartsdale Avenue is now vulnerable to major flooding every two years, but the town has offered to do nothing to remediate the situation. The town continues to have duplicate camps, recreational services and transportation services, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, run by the Departments of Parks and Rec and Community Resources, each with its own highly paid commissioners and nothing is done by the town board to address the situation, the town is rezoning a small parcel of land for the benefit of a single developer that wants to construct a high density low income housing project in a neighborhood of moderate income homes and apartments -- all without waiting for the results of a comprehensive plan that was promised to take residents' concerns about their neighborhoods into account, the town's tax base continues to decline, costing taxpayers more and more everyone, with millions of dollars continuing to be paid out each year in tax certiorari settlements, with no plan to address the matter, the town is drawing millions of dollars from its fund balance to avoid another double digit tax hike, even though the fund balance policy prohibits using the fund balance to fund operating expenses, and the town is estimating $750,000 in funds received from the sale of town property and using that money not for open space as the town's fund balance policy requires, but is instead using that money to cover operating expenses next year too.

So, does the town have problems? You bet it does.

Anonymous said...

You forgot about all the law suits that are pending against the town which will burden all of us further because the town will loose.

If we keep checking we will find other things as to where will the library get the money to stay opened.
How much more will this monster cost the taxpayers down the line.

We aint seen nothing yet. the best is yet to come.

hal samis said...

Dear 12/12 10:24pm and 12:13 9:07am

I'm thinking that neither of you
believe that all of these matters will be solved at the Tuesday work session.

If you'll overlook my borrowing from "Casablanca":

This could be the continuation of a beautiful friendship, and

we'll always have an arts council, hartsdale sculpture curator and private tennis lessons.

Round up the usual suspects.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it amazing that the Attorney General isn't pushing for the adoption of a state / municipal wide recall provision like they have in California? If there was that ability in New York State, I'll bet that the residents of Fulton Park by themselves would gather enough signatures to force a recall ballot.

Sorry Fulton Park. You are toast this time around, but remember to "count" the noses. Will all five be against you, or as Hal Samis suggested at an earlier portion of the public hearing "joke", which one of the Town Board members drew the lucky straw and can vote against this absurd proposal?

Anonymous said...

If Bernstein gets his way and Edgemont becomes a village where will the village jail be located at?

Becoming village up to Edgemont said...

If Edgemont becomes a village, it will not be because Bernstein gets his way, but because 50% or more of the people in Edgemont think they'd be better off economically if they could govern themselves. Issues like where to locate a village jail, assuming Edgemont decided it needed one, would be determined by an Edgemont-wide elected mayor and board of trustees, presumably serving at nominal pay, and a full-time paid village manager. In general, a village does not need a village jail unless it chooses to hire four or more full-time policemen in which case the village would be exempt from having to pay town costs for police, and might want to have a village jail of its own. But a village of Edgemont would always have the right to use the town and/or county jails as they would continue to be paid for by the town and county tax that residents in existing villages alread pay.

edgemont in the klink said...

edgemont is already in a jail - its called unincorporated greenburgh.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it would be economically feasible for Edgemont to become a village even with the tax base they will have with the commercial parcels on Central Ave. Not that I don't think they should but they may need to broaden their boundaries a bit to be successful. They do not have enough developable land for administration and paying for services to the town that they already complain about, is not an ideal situation.
Also, although I know they will try to claim one commuter parking lot for themselves, this parcel will not accommodate its commuters.

If there is one, and only one thing Hartsdale has going for it, it's the parking at the station. No way in Hades will Edgemont ever get more space out of the HPPD. Impossible, by law.

Edgemont will fail at becoming a Village because it thinks too small.

Anonymous said...

Hey Andy Cuomo, yes get rid of the county government but at the same time get rid of Greenburgh.

Another suggestion is get rid of Cousins and Brodsky.

Cousins is a dictator as to what she wants done and Brodsky WHO.??????

E'mont can rent a village hall said...

There is plenty of land available in Edgemont for village administration should Edgemont decide to become a village. Has anyone noticed the enormous number of available rental space along Central Avenue? There is even rental space in Edgemont at the office building at the corner of Club Way and East Hartsdale Avenue. In fact, there is no better time than now for a village of Edgemont to lease space. And make no mistake, Edgemont, with its hefty tax base, will have plenty of money to purchase services from the Town of Greenburgh, the HPPD and any other municipal entity or district that wants to offer Edgemont services. It is difficult to imagine that the Town or HPPD would ever cut its nose to spite its face by refusing to accept Edgemont dollars, but if a Feiner-driven town government did so (and screwed the taxpayers that support them in the process) there will always be other places Edgemont may go to pay for services.

Anonymous said...

The concept of paying for the very services Edgemont wants to leave behind or complains about confuses me.
Anyway, as for as the HDDP goes, the absence of Edgemont permit holders would result in the HPPD having to open up the newly opened spots to all of the villages, including Ardsley, who has been despriate to get space in Hartsdale. Edgemont would have to wait in line and hope they can get spots in Hartsdale just like Ardsley.

Unincorporated Greenbugh is one of the very few areas boast having commuter parking for all of its residents. There will not be another village, city or town looking to accommodate Edgemont. It's not a matter of cutting of a nose. The space just doesn't exist.

Anonymous said...


Scarsdale cant sell all of its spots now that the construction is over.

And btw, if Edgemont goes, please remember, a large part of the HPPD station parking is in Edgemont (and unlike Veterans, was never purchased).

Anonymous said...

Well, ok then. Sounds like you have the whole thing figured out!
The land was deeded to the HPPD. Edgemont SD or not it belongs to the HPPD. Not purchased, DEEDED. If anything Edgemont might have to purchase it from the HPPD. Edgemont will be in for a long haul with that one and the parcel in Edgemont School District (boundaries of Edgemont Village not yet defined) is not big.
Good luck!

Anonymous said...

A very nice garage can be built on the lot on the other side of the highway. Let HPPD pay off it own bonds. But anyway, many spots in Scarsdale now.

Edgemont incorporation on its way said...

Anon at 8:27 and 8:14 from last night are Feiner blogging anonymously again, repeating the same BS he argued three years ago when Edgemont's incorporation effort was being studied. His arguments were debunked then, and they'd be easily debunked now. Edgemont's incorporation turns on whether 50% or more of Edgemont's residents think they'd be better off economically if they were no longer part of unincorporated Greenburgh and had control of their taxing and spending. With a town budget that cuts police and other essential services, while increasing taxes more than 31% in two years, and leaving intact nonessentials like the $100,000 gift to Fairview and the $167,000 after school program for GC7 which could be obtained tax free from the Y, and downzoning Central Avenue for no apparent reason before the comprehensive plan is even completed, there's a lot of reason for Edgemont's incorporation effort to begin. The case will get even more compelling when the Fortress Bible Church lawsuit is decided.

And of course Edgemont will contract for services. By contracting for services, Edgemont will guarantee for its residents a level of service it cannot obtain for itself right now as long as it continues to be part of unincorporated Greenburgh. In some respects Edgemont is already doing this, what with having to hire private security guards to protect neighborhoods from the continuing rash of burglaries plaguing Edgemont while the town police force gets reduced in number.

hartsdale in the crapper said...

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm 8:27 & 8:14 and not Feiner.

I do not live in Edgemont or Fairview but live in Hartsdale. The negative effects that you mention effect me as well. There have been many burglaries in my neighborhood over the years, I've had my car broken into 4 weeks ago, in my driveway, and items stolen. My next door neighbor was burglarized 2 years ago. You just don't hear about it. Point is that we all face the same problems. Edgemont is not exclusive, it does not suffer more than the rest of us.

You are in fact wrong about the afterschool program. Technically, it does not only serve GC kids. I do not support it. It should not have been instituted. It costs money. We scloudnt be in the education business, it is nonsense BUT it does not only serve GC kids.

While I do see the merits of Edgemont becoming a village, I do see the disadvantages as well. It will be very costly and I think you know that. Honestly, if I lived in Edgemont, I don't know how I would feel but I can tell you that if it should happen, it will decimate the balance of TOV and this my friend, will be your new neighborhood. You can not be shielded from it. I'm not sure that those in Edgemont, particularly those bordering on Hartsdfale, will be happy down the line.
The middle class in Hartsdale will retreat as they will no longer be able to afford to live here. Tuition increases (85% of Hartsdale children attend private schools) tax increases, decline in services and appearance of our neighborhoods, those moving into our neighborhoods, have us looking to leave. Housing prices will drop dramatically and Hartsdale will continue to see more and more immigrants looking to buy cheaply there. It has already been happening. Multiple families moving in. Many complaints to town hall because of overcrowding violations. Commercial vehicles parked in driveways. 4 and 5 cars at a time too.

I know of 3 families that have already moved out because of the tax increases, rotten school district, decline in home values and the decline of the caliber of new neighbors. \

The school district will see an upswing in enrollment but it will not be able to handle it. There has been an influx of illegal children to the schools now.

I'm not defending or opposing the Edgemont move as I will be long gone for the very same reasons people in Hartsdale are defecting now, however, it's something for you Edgemont folks to chew on.

You may not be living in it when it happens but you will living around it will not be able to avoid it and its indirect consequences to Edgemont.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:40 should be thinking about contacting Edgemont's leaders to see if there'd be any interest in (1) expanding a village of Edgemont to include Hartsdale or (2)incorporating Hartsdale as its own village. If anyone in the unincorporated area is up to date on what needs to be done to form a village, it's those folks in Edgemont.

shame of hartsdale said...

this excellent post is worth re-reading when you think of the folks in hartsdale whose sole existence is to keep villagers out of their imagined private veteran park preserve:

ardsley is not fighting edgemont over veterans.

the villains in this story are mostly sad apartment dwellers in hartsdale or other mean spirited and bitter types in various parts of unincorporated greenburgh who harbor all sorts of grudges that go back decades. these pathetic types have so little going for them that they hold on to limited access to veteran park pool as the only saving grace to their otherwise inconsequential lives by seeking to believe in a fantasy that by keeping others out thye are members of a private club.

i suspect any villager that would want to use veteran pool park would pay well for the right even if only limited to weekdays when its under 90 degrees outside and not too crowded.

but the gatekeepers, in denial of the fact that the pool runs at a large deficit and needs millions of dollars in repairs, cling to their greenburgh equivalent of religion and guns by keeping the gates closed even if it means the pool itself will have to cut back its hours of operation or close.

some of these poor souls are so angry they even begrudge first responders from the villages who can use the pool under a kind town policy even though these same first responders would act to save the lives of the gatekeepers (found on the town recreation board) without asking where they live or what school district they are in.

Ardsley shot itself in foot said...

Ardsley felt aggrieved by the Town's decision more than 25 years ago to limit access to Veteran Park, sued for a right of access and won. But the Town of Greenburgh, and all five other villages, lobbied for enactment of the so-called Finneran Law which, as the town and villages, including Ardsley, now interpret it, mandate that no village resident could have access to any town park, including Veterans Park, unless the residents of that village agreed by referendum as of November 1, 1982 to pay their fair share of the costs of all Greenburgh parks and rec facilities. Ardsley said no, and has been barred ever since -- and Ardsley agrees that that's the way Finneran must be construed.

So stop blaming people in Hartsdale for problems of Ardsley's own making.

Maybe the Finneran Law will be declared unconstitutional, in which case Ardsley will get access at the price of having to pay for all of the town's parks. Or maybe the Finneran Law will be deemed constitutional, and the state legislature will amend it to permit the town to allow non-TOV residents to use town parks for a fee. But don't count on it.

Ardsley made its bed most recently by supporting the lawsuit that seeks to uphold Finneran's constitionality and by doing that, instead of trying to compromise, Ardsley's once again made its case far less sympathetic than it might otherwise have been.

Hartsdale Home Owner said...

8:40 PM: I also live in Hartsdale and I agree with your comments mostly. Fortunately, my neighborhood (Manor Woods) hasn't seen the demographic changes or crime increases you write about. I have noticed, however, when occasionally checking the State School "report cards" the dramatic increase in ESL students in the GC's elementary schools. The downturn in the economy, however, hasn't played out yet and with decreases in construction and service job opportunities, there will likely be a reduction in immigraton, even a reversal, nationwide as well as locally. Nonetheless, I have frequently mentioned on this blog the staggering increase in taxes. Since I bid on my house, almost 6 years ago my total property tax has increased about 60%. I know, I know.. it will be pointed out that the town is only responsible for 20% of the bill, GC is about 50% and the rest is county, fire, sewer, etc and taxes are much higher in surrounding communities with "prestigious" school systems. This rate of increase, however, is unsustainable for my family and it is particularly frustrating that no one (not Feiner, Spano, GC, etc) accepts any responsibilty or offers sympathy for the plight of typical homeowners struggling to budget for such increases. The fact remains too, that in my neighborhood families with young children almost all plan to move by the time their kids reach the age of 5. There are a few school age kids going to Sacred Heart and a couple of other private schools, but not many. One interesting and in my mind, surprising, phenomenon has been that almost no Schechter families have moved into Hartsdale in the 5 years since the high school opened. I fear that this is a sad reflection on the reputation of Hartsdale.

tax complaints lack detail said...

dear hartsdale homeowner

1. what is your view on the purchase of taxter ridge?

2. where do you stand on allowing non-tov residents to use veteran park?

3. why has hartsdale continued to vote year in and year out for the likes of juettner and feiner?

4. where do you stand on things like swat, tdycc, the nutrition program run by the town, the gifts to the valhalla school district and the fairview fire district?

5. how did you vote on the library?

6. should we eliminate county government?

no one can evaluate your "my taxes are too high" claim unless you say how you voted on these issues.

if 60% is too high - and im sure it is - what are you willing to cut to get it back to something reasonable?

Anonymous said...

The nasty comments to the Hartsdale homeowner concerned about rising taxes are needlessly divisive and not constructive.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the blogger who wrote these comments was from the Village of Ardsley, which is a not unreasonable assumption since most of the Juettner-hate mail comes from that general direction.

And let's turn the questions around a bit. What do village residents think about the Taxter Ridge purchase? None of you came out against it at the time, and in the years since it's been the subject of litigation, who among you have questioned the wisdom of its purchase. All you seem to complain about is having to pay your fair share for it.

And what about allowing non-TOV residents into Veteran Park? It wouldn't make a dent in TOV taxes if they were. The pool costs $485,000 next year; fees will bring in $410,000. So, if 75 families from Ardsley each paid $1,000, or three times what it costs TOV residents, the pool would break even. So what? We'd still be obligated to pay for the costs of all other parks and rec and community resource expenses that TOV residents must pay for. Don't hear Ardsley offering to chip in for that. And who's to say we'd even get 75 Ardsley families to pay $1,000 a pop - there's plenty of other cheaper places for Ardsley families to play. And what if we only got a few? Guess that would be a windfall for those Ardsley residents who want in? Why shouldn't your village government take care of your recreational needs?

And if we're gonna be picky about it, why is unincorporated Greenburgh footing the bill for the tennis instruction that takes place at Veterans, when almost all the participants live in the Village of Ardsley and don't have to pay any park admission to use the courts?

And how do Ardsley residents feel about the Valhalla and Fairview gifts? Or the nutrition program? Or SWAT? These are all A fund items. But nobody from Ardsley showed up at the budget hearing to say a word about any of this.

Anonymous said...

3:22: Voting one way or another on #1-5 really won't change taxes more than $200. #6 touches on the most significant issue w/r/t taxes: duplication of services. I have no idea whether the solution is reducing local governments and turning reponsibilities over to the county or vica versa. Consolidation of services would also be helpful: why do the TOV and villages have separate police forces, separate library administrations? Consolidation with GC would be resisted by many school district, but why not attempt to merge GC and Elmsford schools, for example?

hell in hartsdale said...

Dear Hartsdale neighbor @ 2:49,

I too live in Hartsdale and I'm disappointed that the families of the children attending Solomon Schecter have chosen not to move into Hartsdale. It's anyone guess as to why.

What you say is true. When children become of school age many families flee Hartsdale but many stay fearing a loss on their investment, not being able to afford to move to a better school district, and a willingness to cough up tuition for private schools. This large group of families really take a beating as they are middle, upper middle class yet struggling to make ends meet living here. It was ok until things got out of hand with taxes with both the town & the SD. It was ok until it became abundantly clear that town hall didn't give a hoot about Hartsdale. It was ok until all other TOV people let Hartsdale know that they don't give a damn either. Fairview only cares Fairview. Edgemont only cares about Edgemont. Surprisingly, Hartsdale, who has the most to lose, is very quite. There are very few people in Hartsdale fighting for a better Hartsdale way of life. That's because it's a no win situation.

There is literally noting holding these families here any longer and selling a home in Hartsdale has gotten harder & harder so people have started to sell or rent to ESL families living with 3 generations in one household, out of desperation.

There will be some areas in Hartsdale that may take less of a hit like Manor Woods and Upper Ridge Road area but the other areas are ripe for a big down turn.

You mention that there is an increase in ELS students at GC. This does not surprise me at all. While many have legitamatly moved into GC, many come from outside areas using friends or relatives GC address' and attending schools here.
For example. there is a woman who drives to a spot around the corner from me every day to drop off and collect her child from the bus. I have seen her talking to the home owner where the bus stops. They might be friends but she gets into her car and leaves after each pickup & drop off. She heads into White Plains which is a few blocks away.
I also know of a child who attended GC who lived in the top of a barn, with her family, on the property of a well know property owner. There were illegals. They told me that they had no problem enrolling their child in GC.

Why? Because GC does not question anything and offers a plethora of services to any family whose children attend GC. Paul does the very same. After School programs, free this and that..... it has encouraged families to cheat their way in. It's very easy to do too. We have become a charitable foundation for anyone willing to take advantage no matter where they live.

It's all very sad & disturbing. The SD (aka Fairview) doesn't want our children in the schools, we are invisible to the town board and we are repelled by all others, Edgemont & the villages.

I can't wait until my kids go off to collage. I am OUT OF HERE!

PS. I welcome Ardsley & their money for the use of Veterans Park. :)

P.P.S Paul,thanks for nothing.

villagers tuned out turned off said...

its very difficult to get villagers interested in town affairs - the A budget portion of their taxes is about $100 - thats petty cash today

the town board spends 99% of its time on TOV matters

if unincorporated greenburgh wants help on some of these budget busters like nutrition programs and swat, then start making alliances with villagers and start being honest about the unfair use of veteran park and the library parking lot. your constant barbs against the villages are counterproductive

ecc - your strategy is not working

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you Villagers want to hold unincorporated hostage -- let us your stuff without paying, or we will let town run up useless bills.

Anonymous said...


When Veterans was acquired, Ardsley was given the option of joining, but at the cost of paying its share of all parks and rec budget. It didnt want to.

Let me suggest that if you pressed with the rest of the villages to allow Y or someone to take over TDYCC, and push for a resolution to give up Taxter Ridge, those costs would be less.

As to library, if you think the land issue is unfair, I suggest you contact State Comptrollers office. They issue many rulings -- I think they should get an office at Town Hall. Right now it is just one side saying unfair.

Problem is with VOC, not ECC said...

7:16, don't understand your reference to "ECC, your strategy is not working."

According to its minutes, which are posted on the Internet, the ECC has never discussed much less agreed upon any strategy concerning forming or not forming "alliances" with the villages. That's not what the ECC does.

If one or more of the villages wanted to approach the ECC, however, that's another matter. A few days ago the VOC held a meeting to discuss taking a position on the unlawful grants the Town had been giving to the Valhalla School District. The VOC struggled with such basic issues like whether the state's McKinney Grant program already funds school districts that offer education for homeless children attending their schools. It's no secret that one of the ECC directors is one of the Town's most knowledgeable persons on that subject. Yet no one on the VOC even bothered to ask anyone from the ECC about the matter.

The VOC's failing even to ask what knowledgeable people in the unincorporated area might know about an issue of relatively equal economic importance to both demonstrates that it is the VOC which can't seem to find its way to form alliances, not the ECC or any other group of civic associations in unincorporated Greenburgh.

wake up unincorporated g'burgh said...

havent you ever heard of an open letter?

this whining is getting tiresome.

you in unincorporated greenburgh are going down the tubes.

you need the villages for a bailout.

send a gift basket.

otherwise your future is feiner.

happy new year said...

how tiresome of the ecc to talk about decisions that were made 25 years ago.

its nearly 2009.

veteran park and the library are getting a free ride from ardsley (veteran park) and all the villages (the library parking lot where the old town hall sat).

time to move on. (we know you cannot move out because there is no real estate market in unincorporated greenburgh).

Anonymous said...

Ardsley, the land of blandness, traffic and strip malls has pool & parking (commuter and otherwise) envy. *yawn*

envy - lol said...

and a new library, a new firehouse, a village hall, control over its own zoning and planning, a great parks and recreation program, low taxes, an excellent school district, its own community center, responsive government officials who live in the village, low crime, a great dpw department....

surely you must be joking.

in your dreams e'mont incorporators

Anonymous said...

Ok, 11:13

Time for Ardsley to come up with some proposal other than we should get to use Veterans without paying Parks and Rec taxes. I am sincere about this and listening.

some ideas said...

thats not sincere esp as ardsley already allows many TOV residents to use its facilities without charge - in fact, the library's records show most of the users are from TOV and seemingly from edgemont (btw - the ardsley decicco's collects receipts for edgemont schools and the bin was packed with receipts just this past sunday).

readers know that the town and ardsley could enter into an agreement to create a special park district at veterans park that would be outside finneran - this could lead to a possible large downpayment of sorts that could go to the costly repairs needed.

to ask ardsley taxpayers to pay for all of unincorporated greenburgh's parks and recreation is a nonstarter amd ihmo disingenuous.

if you are alluding to the tdycc - this facility should be closed, sold to the y or also made into a special recreation district for fairview. there is no reason for edgemont or any village to subsidize it after 40 years.

the same is true of taxter - another mistake that should be offloaded or be taxed to the irvington school district that wanted to save it.

lets get smart about these things and join forces were we agree - like getting the money back from valhalla - and depending on the bernstein case - if finneran survives - amending it to give the town board some flexibility to have a tennis bubble and to increase the base of users at veteran park.

lets also stop the outrageous nutrition program the town is funding.

but what we really need are new candidates to move forward in these perilous times.

Anonymous said...


Lets look at this. The Ardsley library, like every member of the Westchester Library System, is required to honor cards of every other member library. That is a large part of why Ardsley was able to get a big fee from Elmsford for them to join your library, even though you dont have enough parking. Remember this? Is this your idea of being fair?

Dicicios is in business. They pay property taxes to ASD. If they wish to encourage business, you should be happy.

The reason that you find the idea of Ardsley paying parks and rec riduculous is that Feiner has allowed it to blow up. Had you joined forced on Taxter Ridge, had you said anything publicly on TDYCC abuses -- such as the no-show jobs and no-show contracts, it might not appear riduculous.

Anonymous said...


The Town Board does not make decisions in unincorporated's best interest. It takes a short-sighted approach that says Villages First, and Fairview. In the end, it will result in misery for all.

Ardsley resident not helpful said...

Sorry Ardsley, readers should know that it is not legally possible at this time for the Town and Ardsley to enter into a contract to allow Ardsley to use Veteran Park because the Finneran Law, as it is currently interpreted, does not allow non-TOV residents to use Veteran Park unless and until the Village of Ardsley agrees to pay its share of all Town parks and rec costs.

Now, Ardsley could have argued tha this interpretation of Finneran was wrong. But it didn't. Its mayor, Jay Leon, joined with the other villages to argue that no, Finneran's use restrictions are mandatory. That means the Town doesn't have the authority to "contract away" that requirement by entering into any agreement with lil ole Ardsley.

Maybe Ardsley resident, instead of ranting ridiculously against Edgemont, you'd be better off picking up the phone and calling your own mayor who presumably spoke for you when he said Finneran's use restrictions are mandatory.

In the meantime, Ardsley resident, you really don't have anything constructive to offer to anyone. Why not spend a little time getting yourself informed about how local government works around here? Then maybe you and your neighbors might have something helpful to offer in dealing with a dysfunctional Greenburgh government besides your rants against your fellow Ardsley resident Diana Juettner.

lost in the B budget said...

some children never lose their fear of the boogeyman - i guess here in greenburgh the big bad wolf is always paul feiner. that must give comfort to some that they found the one source for all the ills of the world.

today its feiner.
tomorrow is madoff.
then soon it will be obama?

herb rosenberg says the ardsley can create a special recreation district for veteran. he is mr finneran for now (the court of appeals will have the final word on what it means).

juettner has been in office since 1991 - she has voted with feiner almost exclusively - even though he did not support her the last go round. if you think she is a valuable member of the town board, you can have her. (notable the ecc president recently called for her and francis sheehanigans to be replaced). seems some ardsley residents are on the same wavelength.

you seem to ignore the central problem - no villager is really going to care about a $100 tax (which is the basic A budget portion).

B budget voters need help. given that the majority of the votes are in A budget land (the villages), you have to work with A budget voters, and not throw barbs at them - they wont stick and just keep turning people off.

some of us live in the real world - learn from rumsfeld - deal with the electorate you have not the one you wish you had.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, even if Bernstein loses, then an amendment to Finnerman is needed at the state level, where it is highly unlikely it would be pushed through without listening to constituents. No one in the B budget is going to give away Veterans. It is that simple. And no in unincorporated greenburgh trusts Feiner. I certainly would not put him in a class with Obama.

Anonymous said...


And does Herb Rosenberg care if Ardsley gets into Veterans? Dobbs Ferry has a pool. Does Jay Leon care more about maintaining Village govt than wether you get into Veterans? Go ahead and dream of an amended Finnerman. Maybe your great grandchildren can go there.

Anonymous said...

How in this post-horse and buggy world is there any justification for a half dozen separate library administrations in Greenburgh? Is there any coherent argument against consolidating all the libraries into one Greenburgh library consisting of several branches? Don't the savings this will generate benefit everyone? Then the next step should be combining police forces with their duplicitive adminstrations - how many chiefs do 80K people need?

Anonymous said...

I have no problem letting Ardsley residents use my pool if I can use their school!!!!!

Anonymous said...

2:54, great point! While we are talking about consolidating rec facilities, let's get working on the school districts!

cogent argument said...

dear 2:18
there is an argument - its the monstrosity now sitting at the intersection of tarrytown road and knollwood - the new greenburgh library - an architectural and design failure.

greenburgh - you were ripped off.

samis warned you.
you didnt listen.
now enjoy this hulking mess for the next 30 years.

ardsley schools said...

you can use the ardsley schools
if you live outside the district, you can pay the going rate if there is space in the class.

Anonymous said...

You can use the pool at Veterans Park if you pay the going rate and there is room in the water.

Anonymous said...

Spit up Hartsdale. 1/2 goes to Ardsley 1/2 to Edgemont. Faiwview and Elmsford merge or Fairview merges with Valhalla. Voila!

GC needs to GO! Edgemont or Ardsley should seize their facilities (the Warberg estate)or give it back to White Plains whom it was originally bequeathed to.

I still can't figure out how Greenburgh got a hold of this property to begin with. Very fishey.

Anonymous said...

Um, correction. that would be "SPLIT" you can spit them up as well if you like. :D

Anonymous said...

3:49 pm
here's a very interesting history of the Central 8 & 7 school districts and the warburg grant:
As you can see, Hartsdale (originally Central 7) was joined Central 8 less than enthusiastically.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, that full link is:

Anonymous said...

Hartsdale, if you want to go back to ancient history, I will join you.

In the 50s, Edgemont and Hartsdale both sent their high school students to out of district. Edgemont realized with the baby boom this would not continue. In 1953, Edgemont was willing to combine with Hartdale, but Hartsdale voted down paying for a high school. They were willing to combine, but not pay their share of a high school. Edgemont was and issued bonds. Fast forward -- over 1o years later, the bonds are 1/3 paid off. (btw, Ardsley may have also paid for a high school in the meantime). Now, Hartsdale realizes there is no where to go. School districts are all overcrowded. Hartdale wants to join Edgemont AFTER THE BONDS ARE 1/3 PAID OFF (OR MORE). They painted themselves into a corner. They wanted to join Edgemont or Ardsley after each had built their own high schools. Yes Hartsdale and Fairview had a forced merger, but had they been willing to share the cost of a high school this would not have been the result.

Anonymous said...

Hartsdale, give up, no one is taking you. Edgemont and Ardsley have paid for their high schools. Posting on this board will not help. Feiner can not help. I suggest the parents of the 1100 private school parents form their own organization and vote their own candidates onto the school board. It will be ugly. It will take 2-3 years. But you can do it. Then take back your schools. Turn the elemantary schools into K-6 neighborhood schools. Go for it. The force is with you.

been there, done that said...

5:19. What you say is true except what is only lightly touched upon is the 3 votes taken. Hartsdale did not want the merger and wanted to pay up & merge with Edgemont but it was going to be put up for vote until those that wanted 7 & 8 to merger got their way. (many in both Edgemont & Hartsdale)
I've lived here long enough to personally know those who lived it and they tell a very different story than what Edgemont "needs" to believe. The 3rd vote (3 VOTES!?)was taken virtually unannounced, in the middle of the Summer when school was not in session and most were away on vacation. By ]all accounts, it was "slipped in" and many returning back from vacation were shocked to learn what had taken place.

Regardless, I feel confidant that there were good intentions on the part of those that wanted the merger. It was a different time and although I'm sure there were people looking to keep costs down, the majority of the "yes" voters were looking to effect change and racial equality.

The sad part is that from day one, those living in Hartsdale found that the emphasis on education at Greenburgh Central revolved around the black community and trying to elevate them up to acceptable academic standards. There was, and still is, very little offered for those students that excel as all money is spent on "bring up the bottom".

I was involved in trying to get the G7 SD restructured by doing away with the archaic way the SD disperses children, grades K & 1 at one school, 2 & 3 at another........and return a K-6 in each neighborhood. We needed the white/Hartsdale families to enroll thier children to support the SD and if that meant restoring a neighborhood school that made sense to the budget, I was for it. I was called racists and worse. When speaking out at a meeting I was told "Shut up you stupid white woman" while presenting the merits of restructing as it pertained to saving money. I was heckled, shouted at. I was completely aghast. There was such anger and hostility towards me by many in the black community. It was very, very sad.

There was no way in hell the parents of the kids enrolled in GC wanted the white kids in the schools and they made that abundantly clear.

So, that "yes" vote that was suspiciously derived at by the well intended folks in Hartsdale back then, has come full circle and slap us in the face.

It's an interesting phenonimum really. Will GC someday rewrite history and change to desegregate once again, this time to allow whites equality in the SD?

We will see......

Um, what? said...

Hartsdale, give up, no one is taking you. Edgemont and Ardsley have paid for their high schools.

How silly is this defense? What will Edgemont & Ardsley do when the bonds are paid off and those living there while they were being paid have retired in Flordia? Will they charge higher taxes to the new residents just because you, living in Florida, paid off the initial bonds?

Are you too dumb to realize that there will most, likely be new bonds as buildings need improvements or replacement? When these new bonds come about, and indeed they will, (new pool for Ardsley or Edgemont perhaps?) who is going to pay for them? Why, the next generation of residents, of course! So you would snub your noses at a boatload of money from new residents just because the existing bonds are almost paid for? Are you planning on remaining in your homes till you die? If so, get ready to be paying up again.

Gosh, this is such a stupid argument, I can not believe I've wasted my time responding. Silly me!

Anonymous said...

A very nice garage can be built on the lot on the other side of the highway. Let HPPD pay off it own bonds.

And here we see this again. Edgemont saying they will wait for the HPPD to pay off their bonds on the lots so that they can swoop in and claim Site D as theirs.

DUH? The original bonds were just about paid in full BEFORE improvements were necessary AND new bonds where issued for the improvements. You'll be waiting another 30 years. Grab a good book.
Funny how Edgemonts defense is "but we paid for our high schools!" yet they sit poised and smug suggesting that Unincorporated Greenburgh should pay off bonds on a piece of property that they will claim as theirs. So crafty!

ed krauss said...

The "kissing cousin" of petition for referendum, is the concept of RECALL. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could vote to Recall any and all elected Greenburh town officials?

Is there ample legal reason to Recall? You better believe it. Breaking or not adhering to the law is grounds enough.

Ah but it' but a dream. We can't Recall any of them.

BUT, we have the "power of the finger." Each and every November. Think about it.

* Nearly $2,000,000 coming back from Valhalla.

* Keeping Fulton Park, or your neighborhood, intact.

*Exposing xpose for what a sham it is, and recouping that which hasn't been "absorbed" by someones bank account.

* Doing a forensic accounting on the Library construction expenditures, and "finding a few $million.

Settling the Fortress Bible "Dumb man speak with unfiltered mouth," Fiasco, before it settles us. (For that you need competant legal representation, not a YESMan-cum-Law-Degree.)

*Someone to start planning for the oncoming "Sewer Disaster." For that you need a leader with guts who tells the truth, else when those 100 year old sewer pipes go,we'll be known as the "Isle of Greenburgh."

Think about it. REAL leadership.

Government with

Elected officials unaffraid to level with us.

Ah, perchance to dream.

BUT, BUT, BUT, all of our dreams (well maybe not all) can come true with the correct vote this coming November.

Anonymous said...


Relax. Edgemont will still be talking about becoming a village in 2025.
If it ever does, Hartsdale will be the new Port Chester. Maybe Edgemont will build a wall the school district so as not to have to bleach thier eyes when they encounter the new riffraff they will be surrounded with.

Anonymous said...


Please tell us.

Anonymous said...


The HPPD bonds were paid off by the parkers, of which some of which were Edgemont people.

The Edgemont SD bonds were paid of by the residents, all of which wre Edgmeont people,


Anonymous said...

some of which were Edgemont people

I get it.
So everyone is paying for it and when it's all paid for Edgemont should have it, right?
Wait! Don't I pay a fee for a parking permit of which a portion is paid to the Edgemont School District? Why, yes I do!
Yes, I clearly see why this is fair.

The Edgemont SD bonds were paid of by the residents, all of which wre Edgmeont people.
I get it!
What's ours is yours & what's yours is yours.
Oh, and one more thing. By way of paying for my parking permit, I too have helped pay off your bond.

Yes folks. If you buy a commuter parking permit at the HPPD some of your money goes to pay taxes on the Site D lot which a part of, falls in to the EDGMT SD.

So, lets all pay off the bond at the HPPD, pay permit fees that go to the EDGMT SD and if Edgemont ever gets it $hit together and becomes a village, the fine commuting folks of Unincorporated Greenburgh will GIVE them the property they paid for.

Yes! Make perfect sense to me!

*cough* *whisper* doesn'tthatalsomeanbylawmykidsareentitledtoattendedgmtsd?


Anonymous said...

No, in all liklihood, HPPD will be used and/or divided up on the basis of either permits paid, land in each etc. End of day, it wont matter. There is enought parking for all of Unincorporated and Egemont -- OK.

School disticts can only be changed if the state allows. Current state rules are both districts must seperately agree. Read the law.

Anonymous said...

Nope. Not OK.

There's much more below the surface, my good friend and you'd be best to zip it.

Anonymous said...

Right now, Scarsdale is selling excess permits to anyone who wants. About 500 more per year than HPPD. Anyone who thinks Edgemont would trade the 500per permit diff for the schools is smoking funny cigarettes.

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:42, have you reviewed law on when villages are formed out of towns. are just not happy with GC, which btw is not an underperforming school.

Anonymous said...

Did 7:42 mention schools? Where? I must be blind?

Anonymous said...

wha? Who's talking about trading anything for anything. Hey 7;56, put the pipe down!

Anonymous said...

6:22, linked schools and parking.

and also, Hartsdale, you have many residents who are older and have no kids and do not necessarily want to pay for kids in any school.

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:58. I have more to worry about with Edgemont as my "friend" than I do about my school district.

Anonymous said...

6:22, Where on earth do you get your information?

That would be like me saying that after the kiddies go off to collage, Edgemonters fly the coup!

How crazy would that be?

Anonymous said...

Pardon me. My last comment is directed to 8:07

had enough said...

I'm with Ed. If there is a reason to recall, let's pursue it. Enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

Ed, you bring up Fortress again. No matter what the decision, my guess it will be apealed. And Fortress will bring up why they couldnt get a break, when Feiner bends over backwards for Westhab. Count on it.

glad im in a village said...

things are alot more peaceful in
21st century ardsley.

seems unincorporated is stuck in the 50s, 60s, 70s and plagued by the economics of 2009.

Anonymous said...

So very true 8:40. Very true.

Anonymous said...

we're stuck alright except those that want change only want it for themselves and bully the others with lines like "heck, you voted for it/him/her, deal with it" or " hey, it doesn't effect me so it's not my issue. good luck!"

we will not be able to get unstuck if we do not band together.
feiner is all about dived and conquer and although we know this we can't seem to gather the troops in a fierce show of force and unseat this guy.
feiner wins. we lose.

Anonymous said...

I dont know who you are 8:55 or whre you come from, but I agree with you.

solution said...

there is a possible solution - its called term limits.

the case for term limits? feiner and juettner, in office since 1991. - as of january 20, that will be under the era of 4 presidents.

when feiner first ran, he was in favor of term limits.

political power is an addiction - but its the voters who suffer from the disease.

Anonymous said...

Last election we had 3 candidates who were committed to compromise. Berger, Bass and Barnes. I voted for them.

town on the couch said...

you mean the same bass and barnes that voted to appeal the bernstein decision?

berger temporized on any alleged compromise.

folks - time to get real. the structure of the town with 6 villages and a large unincorporated area of mixed class and race does not lend itself to any form of compromise. the villages get little from the town and what they get is obscure. the villages are not interested in the social programs the town board has saddled unincorporated greenburgh with. in better times, this largesse was overlooked. with the collapse or political disappearance of hartsdale, there are few voices for change in unincorporated outside of edgemont the sounds of which indicate that edgemont often has a tin ear- not that their complaints are without merit - they just dont sound warm and fuzzy and as a result they get no traction. the economic bleeding is only pulling people further apart as they bicker with what unions want and the taxes they pay.

the town, run by an odd assortment of politicians, career and otherwise, are by and large, without sufficient experience or wisdom on how to change anything. thats why the duck every problem and being immature, cannot say no to westhab, valhalla school district, the tdycc, taxter ridge, art curators, nutrition programs etc.

the fact is the town ceased to exist long ago - now its just a bunch of interest groups seeking to hold on to what they have or to fend off the beasts from outside - its a lonely struggle. just ask fulton park.

greenburgh gets little news coverage in the main source of news - channel 12.

local columnists are bemused by feiner's small bore gadfly games.

sadly most greenburgh residents who do involve themselves are stuck in the past and have strange notions that they have a right to live in greenburgh forever or the decisions made decades ago are immutable.

ultimately the people of greenburgh are not that different from those in iraq - they do not want to give up their fiefdoms - whether its villages or school districts and merge into something larger.

so things will not change in greenburgh.