Thursday, October 22, 2009


To keep tax increases as low as possible the town will be selling town owned land.

SURPLUS TOWN OWNED LAND AUCTION – November 18, 2009. Registration 9:30am Auction 10:00am – an informational packet of the properties is available (Greenburgh Town Hall, 177 Hillside Avenue) in the Tax Receiver’s office for $5.00. The information will soon be available on line at if you have questions regarding specific properties contact the assessor 914-993-1520 and if you have questions regarding the auction process, contact the Tax Receiver 993-1512. You can also e mail me at with questions.



Another Feiner gimmick said...

This is just another gimmick designed to mask the true costs of town government.

The Town's 2009 budget provided for $750,000 in revenue from the sale of town-owned properties to defray operating expenses and keep taxes down. Some of us thought this was a gimmick and that it was unwise and imprudent as a matter of tax policy to offset current operating expenses with proceeds from one-shot only sales of town-owned land.

After all, in 2010, assuming no increase in town spending, the Town will have to find another $750,000 just to keep taxes flat.

But so far this year, the Town has not sold any property. What has the Town done to make up for this $750,000 shortfall in anticipated revenue?

And what phantom number does the Town plan to assign for the sale of town-owned property for 2010?

There's nothing wrong with selling surplus town land. But prudent management ordinarily requires that the proceeds be used not to fund current operating expenses but rather to offset capital borrowing in the future.

Isn't it time we had a town supervisor who didn't engage in budgetary gimmicks like this to mask the town's true financial state?

Anonymous said...

One shot monies can not be used for capital projects because the board has decided that there will be no capital budget in 2010. Prudent budgeting might have called for a 20 or 30 or 50 or 70 % capital spending reduction given the difficult budget year. Instead, this measure will require more future spending to make up for needed deferred acquisitions like police and sanitation vehicles and equipment. This is not sound financial planning.

Anonymous said...

I have a suggestion. Eliminate the town supervisor's position.

Anonymous said...

Reminder that an article in the Scarsdale Inquirer this summer quoted Paul Feiner as promising to have a lower tax increase this year than last year.

ed krauss said...

Since the $750,000 "package" of surplus Greenburgh property didn't seem to be sold last year, will it be part of this years "virtual surplus property auction?"

Are there any "bridges for sale?

How about police cars with less than 250,000miles and sirens that work? I like sirens that work.

Who will be the guest auctioneer, the Assessor?

Will there be refreshments supplied by companies with active, current, applications before town boards, or contributors to the heavyweight campaign warchest of an elected official?

Will it be a"silent" auction held in executive session because of a drummed up "personnel" excuse and a doctors or "Epstein's Mother," note, written by JUDY,JUDY,JUDY? (With sincerest apologies to the estate of Cary Grant for using his memorable line in vane.)

Paul, yu should be commended for "reproducing" sooooo many rabbits from one hat, and chastized for "animal cruelty..notwithstanding your PETA-friendly NO MORE CIRCUS' IN GREENBURGH, policy.

Why not save some of these ideas for when/if you run against a live opponent AND no longer have Sheehan nor Juettner's coattail to hang onto?

Your pal,(flu and all)

Anonymous said...

Ed: We should sell town land to reduce our taxes. You don't make sense.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Krauss wants to make the case against Paul, he should keep quiet. His comments are difficult to digest.

ed krauss said...

Right on, 5:21. However the active word in your blog is SELL. Not include it in the revenue side of the ledger, not recieve any funds and sweep it under the table.

7:05Pm, I'm sorry my comments are difficult to digest, I understand Xposure may be offering a "reading comprehension " course.

I'll run your suggestion up the flagpole and see if it flys.

Thanks, anyway.We distill all information, keep what's worthwhile and discard the rest.

Keep those postings coming.

Anonymous said...

Ed. I don't care about grammar. Your comments are senseless.

ed krauss said...

OK 10:13 PM, since yo're the sensible one as between the two of us, please answer these questions:
(1) Was the property valued at $750,000 sold?
(2) Was any part of it sold?
(3) If so, where did the proceeds go?
(4) If not there was an overstated $750,000 in revenues that were not received, what was done to correct that error?
(5) If nothing was done, what would a sensible person like you do about it other than telling me to keep quiet?

Awaiting your response. Not about me, please, but to the questions posed.

Murghk said...

Does no one see the irony here?
During his early years in office Feiner and friends bought (at inflated prices) every parcel of land that might, someday, be developed. He went to extremes to purchase land - incurring significant debt and removing tax-paying properties from the private sector.
Now, faced with the inevitable results of his fiscal ineptitude and mismanagement, he proposes to sell land to make it all better.
Mark Twain said, "Buy land; they're not making any more of it." Feiner needs to decide whether he has abandoned his quest to turn Greenburgh into a giant parkland by buying every lot offered, or save his political skin by selling land and assigning the one-time revenues to reducing year-after-year operating expenses.
I am surprised the Supervisor hasn't claimed credit for Mark Twain as a Greenburgher - he owned a significant property in Tarrytown at one time...After all, if Greenburgh is the 80th Best Place to Live, surely we should recognize ourselves as the Home of One of America's Greatest Authors.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to find out what the tax hikes will be.

Anonymous said...

To 4:44PM

With or without the use on additional fund balances?

ed krauss said...

I'm still waiting 10:13PM
How about some answers to the questions I posed. Anyone can criticize (especially when they're anonymous.) There is no shame in not being able to answer. If you need help I'll help and you have m word, I won't demean you.

Where is last year's $750,000 land sale proceeds?

Clue: Ask Edy, Paulie Bart or David Copperfield.

ed krauss said...

P.S. I can't give you any more clues tonight because I have a datein the city.


hal samis said...

Howzat again, again.

"To keep tax increases as low as possible the town will be selling town owned land."

Note that the Water Wheel property is back, quietly back. Everytime it gets "sold", does this produce revenue?

Only if the Town Supervisor can convince informed residents that a sale, which returns the unpaid school taxes etc. that the Town was obligate to lay out, is revenue; revenue that will lower taxes.

I lend you $10. You return it. Do I count this $10 as revenue?

What residents need to know is how much of the "upset" price is merely the "return" of capital.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Hal raises a rather interesting point.
When a property is sold at auction to settle a tax matter, all of the money above the amount of unpaid taxes and some amount to cover interest and administrative fees, is supposed to be returned to the titleholder.
These sales may be different, but how is it that the Town came to hold title to these properties?
The first poster is right - just another Feiner gimmick.

Michael Kolesar said...

Dear Anonymous 10:27 8:38 AM:

I do not believe that you are correct that any proceeds in excess of the outstanding taxes revert to the "prior" deed holder. I had asked a well know attorney in unincorporated Greenburgh this question and while that may follow where a mortgage is involved, I was corrected on this blog by another well known super lawyer from unincorporateed Greenburgh and I believe that he is correct. The point is that once a municipality become the owner through foreclosure, all previous owners' rights cease. The super lawyer cited "chapter and verse."

There is also no question that the proceeds from a disposition of such Town acquired property go first to recover / pay any outstanding tax liabilities. While cash may be increased, for example in the case of school taxes which a Town is required to make good on, other taxes, such as to a Village within a Town have to be paid out.

Finally, at least in the case of the Village of Ardsley, there is an Inter Municipal Agreement betweeen the Village and the Town of Greenburgh which states that any excess proceeds are split 50/50 between the Village and the Town. The date of this agreement is April 7, 1994 and a copy was resent to the Supervisor and Town attorney on May 12, 2008. Somehow I think that the Supervisor, Town Attorney and Town Assessor have overlooked this agreement.
I can assure you the Village of Ardsley hasn't. Whether there are similar IMA's with the other Villages within the Town I do not know, but I'd be surprised if there weren't.

Anonymous said...

How about adding some parkland on your list.

You also have two center that could be sold to private concerns.

The parcels of land thst you have are just as ridiculous as you and the assessor can be.

If a home owner has been enjoying a tiny strip of land adjacent to their homes all these years without
paying a dime why in the hell would they bid for this land and pay extra taxes.

Who's crazier in conducting this auction-the supervisor and his board-or the assessor.
I'm sure the homeowner will tell you where to go after enjoying what they had all these years for free.

Sell some of the parks and maybe some developers will bite at the opportunity.

Disgruntled Greenburgher said...

Mike and Mad Dog Lawyer seem to be correct about the Town getting to keep the money from the sale of the property at auction.
Still, I wonder what account was charged when the Town had to pay the full amount of the tax warrant, and what the proper accounting treatment is of the funds received from an auction like this.
Mr Feiner seems to think this is "income" and arrives as extra money for spending. Something nags at me and suggests that we either borrowed money to cover the difference between the property taxes collected and property tax warrant disbursed or made a "budget transfer". In short, I think we may be "double counting" these proceeds. It also bothers me that there is no provision for providing funds should the land sales not take place. I assume the actually spending would be covered by another transfer from the fund balance. If so, Feiner's proclamation that no fund balance money was used to balance the "B" budget rings very hollow.
Mike Kolesar, could you take a moment and offer guidance?