tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post8424814596862526351..comments2023-10-30T06:13:34.382-04:00Comments on Supervisor Feiner: NYS COMMITTEE ON OPEN GOVERNMENT SAID THAT YESTERDAYS WORK SESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLICPaul Feinerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17087805120754057844noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-544929668013541192007-06-10T22:12:00.000-04:002007-06-10T22:12:00.000-04:00We're making progress.Edgemont bloggers now acknow...We're making progress.<BR/><BR/>Edgemont bloggers now acknowledge that there are other sections of unincorporated.<BR/><BR/>And the concensus seems to be that the Town needn't replace a Town Board with a House of Representatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-50684448237484992472007-06-10T20:32:00.000-04:002007-06-10T20:32:00.000-04:008:16 says " which leaves Edgemont, Hartsdale, Fair...8:16 says " which leaves Edgemont, Hartsdale, Fairview and the rest of unincorporated Gburgh without any dedicated elected representative."<BR/><BR/>Damn right. We are a town, not a balkanized community with individual selfish interests. Next you will want two separate dedicated Edgemont representatives, one from each side of Central Avenue.<BR/><BR/>The different areas should not be enemies. They were not until Bernstein and McNally started making demands for Edgemont and to hell with the rest of Greenburgh.<BR/><BR/>If every area gets its own dedicated representative the Town Board will consist of more than twenty people. And instead of a government we will have a free-for-all.<BR/><BR/>A responsible Town Board will take into account the needs of each area as part of a town. That doesn't mean that each area will get what its vocal representatives demand. How do you think a dedicated Edgemont representative will vote when it involves a question which involve other areas? They won't look at it as a town question, but how does it affect Edgemont. Same thing with dedicated representatives from other areas.<BR/><BR/>Things are bad enough. Don't make it worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-92114599294614770602007-06-10T20:16:00.000-04:002007-06-10T20:16:00.000-04:00No I am saying that when Herb or Hal say only elec...No I am saying that when Herb or Hal say only elected representatives should carry any weight, just becuz Barnes lives in Edgemont, she is still elected by all of Gburgh, which leaves Edgemont, Hartisale, Fairveiw and the rest of unincorporated Gburgh without any dedicated elected representative. And Herb, Hal and Paul know that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-83909228029637058862007-06-10T19:34:00.000-04:002007-06-10T19:34:00.000-04:00Is 6:53 saying that Edgemont ought to have the rig...Is 6:53 saying that Edgemont ought to have the right to have an elected representative from Edgemont? How about Hartsdale. How about Fairview. How about each self-designated area in Greenburgh that doesn't make noise at Board meetings. How about each village. Then each area representative can fight with each other area representative to grab what he can.<BR/><BR/>Or better, how about having a Town Board that respects the entire town. What a novel idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-89253735467564791292007-06-10T18:53:00.000-04:002007-06-10T18:53:00.000-04:00Hal,As I am certain you know, all town council mem...Hal,<BR/><BR/>As I am certain you know, all town council members are elected by all of Greenburgh, not the area they live in. So if Edy Mae lives in Edgemont, she still must be elected by Greenburgh. But I am certain you know that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-5728858365952529362007-06-10T15:59:00.000-04:002007-06-10T15:59:00.000-04:00Dear nameless 12:44,The "CEO" of Greenburgh would ...Dear nameless 12:44,<BR/><BR/>The "CEO" of Greenburgh would be Paul Feiner who has just ONE vote on Town matters.<BR/><BR/>To do anything the "CEO" must be joined by two votes from among the four on the Town Council.<BR/><BR/>Conversely, any measure supported by the "CEO" can be defeated by any three votes from the four members of the Town Council.<BR/><BR/>In fact, most measures get passed by FIVE votes in favor.<BR/><BR/>Still don't get it?<BR/><BR/>Just THREE votes.<BR/><BR/>But more puzzling is why such an informed Edgemont person as yourself does not recognize that Eddie Mae Barnes is an Edgemont resident (344 Central Avenue). I'll bet you, like many voters, think she represents Fairview.<BR/><BR/>And most puzzling is why Edgemont leaders are backing for Town Supervisor, a candidate who lives not in Unincorporated but in the Villages.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Mr. Kolesar and Mr. Rosenberg do present a Village viewpoint which is not unlikely as they reside in the Villages. However there is a difference between PRESENT and REPRESENT. As they have no official capacities, their right to speak/write is as viable as that of "civic leaders" who claim to represent what is an entire School District.<BR/><BR/>If you still don't understand local affairs, or even who represents who, I suggest you see if Edgemont is offering a summer school class in Greenburgh 101 for those who failed the first time around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-7273583347719064032007-06-10T13:38:00.000-04:002007-06-10T13:38:00.000-04:00Oh well, what's the use. Contents is nothing, lab...Oh well, what's the use. Contents is nothing, labeling is everything. End of story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-49527439035481584162007-06-10T12:44:00.000-04:002007-06-10T12:44:00.000-04:00Herb,Edgemont has no elected officials. So are we...Herb,<BR/><BR/>Edgemont has no elected officials. So are we entitled to no representation. And yes, many think you and Mr. Kolesar do presnt the Village veiwpoint. <BR/><BR/>Your continuting efforts to disenfranchise the Un-Villaged will only result in more lawsuits, where yes, the courts have to respect the law. Apparently our Town CEO does not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-90865565913413855232007-06-10T12:09:00.000-04:002007-06-10T12:09:00.000-04:00Thank you Jim Lasser for your sensible words. Dis...Thank you Jim Lasser for your sensible words. Discussing facts and reason should be the popint, not name-calling, especially by people who make things up and then hide behind an anonymous identity.<BR/><BR/>But there is one correction that I have to make. I am not a "passionate advocate" for my community (i.e., the villages). Neither, I think, is Mike Kolesar. What I think we both are are passionate defenders against the almost always unfair accusations and the misstaments that are generally directed at anyone who disagrees, and specifically against village residents. And at anyone who thinks that the current laws are ridiculous because they impose inequities in suburban towns such as ours. And at anyone who thinks that the Finneran Law was enacted to deal with one of those inequities. Very few people have dug into the history and development of the current laws, and even fewer people understand budgets as well as Mike Kolesar does.<BR/><BR/>I am quite certain that if people in unincorporated Greenburgh -- and especially the Town Council -- actually interacted with village representatives instead of stonewalling and impugning them, you would all find out that passionate advocacy of the villages is not what we are about. We are about reality, fairness, and neighborliness, and working thngs out, not about playing gotcha games with the laws. I, for one, have tried to write about facts and about the effect of current laws, and have been met by the kinds of ugly personal attacks which discourage free and open discussions which Jim describes. The same is true for Mike Kolesar. It is discouraging.<BR/><BR/>Yes, there is room for passionale advocacy, but at the end of the day leaders (and by that i mean the elected leaders) have to make decisions based on law, fairness and good sense. A judge expects passionate advocacy from the lawyers before him, but his decision is not a reward for better advocacy, but for his conclusions based on what the advocates have told him plus, and I stress the word "plus" -- his own analytical skills and knowledge of the law. Our elected officials have the same responsibility, except that they have to take policy into account. I don't think that Jim will disagree with my view that in Greenburgh the elected leadership has failed miserably. If they had done their job, instead of abdicating their responsibioity to the self-appointed unelected leaders (i.e., passionate advocates) the town would not be in this mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-68937625144195343142007-06-10T11:21:00.000-04:002007-06-10T11:21:00.000-04:00Among the unelected, but not necessarily self-appo...Among the unelected, but not necessarily self-appointed, "leaders" of unincorporated Greenburgh, Hartsdale Division, one really ought to include Hal Samis, Bob Reininger, Ella Presier, Harry Lawson and Cora Carey. <BR/>Is their "leadership" any better, worse or somehow different from that of Bernstein, McNally, O'Shea, Kaiman or Siegal? <BR/>In all cases what raises some folks hackles is passionate advocacy - not leadership. Why should Herb Rosenberg and Mike Kolesar get a pass from the critics for passionately advocating for their communities? Because they reside within Village boundaries? <BR/>Advocacy is part of the political process. Sticking to the issues, rather than making personal attacks seems more productive. Signing one's name to an opinion shouldn't create a license for those with no respect for the process of democracy to launch the kinds of ugly personal attacks which discourage free and open discussions. <BR/>I've remained largely silent for the last several weeks because the tone of the discussions has been so unrelenting viscious. Facts have been omitted, distorted, or simply ignored - there isn't much sense in participating in a discussion where "facts" are created on the spot to bolster weak arguments. Nor is there much point in participating when any criticism of the sitting government are met with cries of "Treason!" and "Hang the bastards!" <BR/>We sit at the crossroads of antiquated laws, self-serving venal politicos at several levels of government, growing populations who perceive themselves to be disenfranchised, or at the very least poor represented. - And instead of trying to figure out what to do, we want to assign blame rather than take responsibility. I fear we are getting exactly the government we deserve. Sure, it would take only three - but those three would have to display some willingness to accept responsibility. Where the difference can be made by one elected official - like posting the agendas of public meetings, insisting on adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the Open Meetings Law, enforcing the terms of Town-wide franchise agreements - the political parties have failed us miserably when it comes to having a choice, probably because they are controlled by the same career politicians who are our elected officials. <BR/>I suggest we all go to the polls in September (for the political party primaries) and write in the single word "NO" to express our frustration.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-57815599006299528932007-06-10T10:19:00.000-04:002007-06-10T10:19:00.000-04:00QUESTION FOR ANON 4:43. WHO ARE THE RECOGNIZED LE...QUESTION FOR ANON 4:43. WHO ARE THE RECOGNIZED LEADERS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA AND WHO MADE THEM LEADERS? I DON'T REMEMBER ANY ELECTIONS FOR LEADERSHIP. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THOSE FEW WHO ALWAYS GET UP AT TOWN BOARD MEETINGS AND MAKE DEMANDS AND PUT DOWN ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM? I LIVE IN HARTSDALE AND THEY DON'T SPEAK FOR ME. THEY ARE NOT MY LEADERS. I SEE THEM AS INTOLERANT TROUBLEMAKERS.<BR/><BR/>MANY UNINCORPORATED GREENBURGH RESIDENTS DO NOT COME TO TOWN BOARD MEETINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE EMBARRASSED AT THE SPECTACLE THESE SELF-STYLED LEADERS MAKE. WE WOULD BE A BETTER TOWN IF THEY LEFT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-77194507325160498102007-06-10T08:04:00.000-04:002007-06-10T08:04:00.000-04:00Mr. Anonymous 4:43, you obviously don't get it at ...Mr. Anonymous 4:43, you obviously don't get it at all, and you don't read either.<BR/><BR/>Of course the inequities that I cited are in accordance with state law. That doesn't make them less inequitable or unfair. Just as it is inequitable for WestHELP rentals to be in the A budget because that is in accordance with state law, when equity and fairness would place them in the B budget. Just as it is inequitable for the mortgage recording tax to be skewed disproportionately in favor of the villages because that is in accordance with state law.<BR/><BR/>The whole point I and others have made is that the state laws are antiquated and don't work with large, highly populated and developed suburban towns. The kind of clashes which have developed in Greenburgh will continue forever if these antiquated laws are not changed, because the unincorporated area on the one side, and the villages on the other, will continue to complain that they are being treated unfairly. And the truth is, that both sides are.<BR/><BR/>The goal is to develop proposals for legislative changes that will result in residents throughout the town agreeing that they are being taxed fairly -- or as fairly as it is possible to be in this high-tax era. That requires knowledge and objectivity and a strong sense of fairness.<BR/><BR/>I won't talk about what objectivity means. It would be a useless exercise because (aside from the fact that yor writing shows that objectivity is not what you want) as long as this Town Council is in office there won't be any efforts to solve the problem. Their speciality is ducking responsibility.<BR/><BR/>And now enough on this subject, at least for me, since every effort to explain results in the same old distractions from those who have been persuaded by some of the "recognized leaders of the unicorporated area" that the villages are ripping them off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-59846700085073321492007-06-10T07:57:00.000-04:002007-06-10T07:57:00.000-04:00Anon at 10:41, so what you are saying is that no o...Anon at 10:41, so what you are saying is that no one in the villages or edgemont should be happy with Town mgmt?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-44432168600488436432007-06-09T22:41:00.000-04:002007-06-09T22:41:00.000-04:00"budget issues decided in accordance with state la..."budget issues decided in accordance with state law"<BR/><BR/>Yea, but laws can be changed. Why do the villages allow the law to remain? If I lived in one of the villages (and I wish I did), I'd definitely do everything possible to secede from Greenburgh. If it weren't for Edgemont schools, I'd move from Unincorporated Greenburgh in a heartbeat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-5023241630789585372007-06-09T16:43:00.000-04:002007-06-09T16:43:00.000-04:00Herb, Most of the "inequities" you site are in bud...Herb, <BR/><BR/>Most of the "inequities" you site are in budget issues decided in accordance with state law. As to your request of "objective" agreement on these issues, I submit that your idea of objective is biased in favor of the villages. You have already shown your bias. Which is OK, you are a village representate. If tthe Town were to form a committee on this, the recognized leaders in the unincorporated area must be part of the solution. But you will not accept that. Which leaves the unincorporated areas no choice but to go to court. Maybe a different supervisor will accept that unincorporated leaders can be part of a solution. Until that time, more lawsuits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-91174741693404554912007-06-09T10:40:00.000-04:002007-06-09T10:40:00.000-04:00To answer the last blogger, one can say that discu...To answer the last blogger, one can say that discussing the hole rather than the doughnut doesn't make for serious discussion. But to answer:<BR/><BR/>1. The Day Care Center is open to everybody in Greenburgh and out of Greenburgh (including the Bronx). If it is federally funded then open admission may be mandated by law. if it is not federally funded then it is possible that it may have to be restricted to residents of unincorporated Greenburgh. This was never a problem because nobody cared. In light of the Bernstein lawsuits this may be a problem that may have to be faced.<BR/><BR/>2. Taxter Ridge is open to all, but in reality only to deer, mosquitos and squirrels. The town violated the law by making a deal with the state and county to open it up. That is going to be answered by the appeal.<BR/><BR/>3. Kapica's Navy, as you foolishly call it, is a joint effort by various police departments. Each municipality pays its share.<BR/><BR/>4. The Theodore Young Center. Same as the answeer to the Day Care Center. But we know that the Young Center was financed by grants under the federal Water Conservation Act, which requires open admission, and from HUD and the Health and Human Services Department, so in all likelihood it is covered by the federal grant exception in the Finneran Law. And before you get all heated up about the federal grant exception remember that all Americans pay the taxes that went into those grant.<BR/><BR/>Now to get to the real point. I said virtually no services, which to me means almost no services. So let's see.<BR/><BR/>a. The A budget pays for the Town Court. The Town Court has no village cases because the Village Courts handle those.<BR/><BR/>b. The A budget pays for the Town Comptroller. The Comptroller does nothing for the villages and the villages have their own comptrollers.<BR/><BR/>c. The A budget pays for the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney does almost nothing for the villages because the villages have their own Village Attorneys. It is only when the town is sued and the entire town is at risk that the Town Attorney can be said to be doing something for the villages.<BR/><BR/>4. The Assessor's Department is in the A budget. He assesses only for the Town taxes, not the village taxes. The villages have their own assessors. But the Town Assessor is in the A budget.<BR/><BR/>5. The Receiver of Taxes Department is in the A budget, but that office deals with the collection of town taxes and school taxes. The villages have their own Receivers of taxes who administer collection of village taxes. If the Receiver does anything for the villages it is not big, certainly not 100%.<BR/><BR/>6. The Data Processing Department is in the A budget, but does nothing or almost nothing for the villages.<BR/><BR/>7. The Central Service Department (which provides office and administrative services to town departments) is mostly in the A budget, even though it does nothing, or almost nothing, for the villages.<BR/><BR/>8. The Town Engineer is in the A budget, but you can rest assured that if a village asked for the Town Engineer's services the Town Engineer would hang up.<BR/><BR/>I can go on, but I think tthe point is made. There are some services that the town provides, like road striping, but the villages pay the town for those.<BR/><BR/>The argument is always about how to charge the parks. It comes about because the town has decided for its own policy reasons to let non-residents in even though that violates the Finneran Law (the town collects revenue for letting village residents in). Since the town made that policy it is likely that a few village residents may come in, but all but a small number of village residents use only their own parks not the town parks. And town residents use village parks, especially in Ardsley, without being taxed for their costs.<BR/><BR/>By the way, on the revenue side it is the unincorporated area residents who are being treated unfairly. The laws are antiquated and unfair all around. That is why I, and others, have been trying to get the town and village governments to sponsor a group of knowledgeable and objective -- and I stress the word "objective" -- people to study the laws and recommend amendments that will eliminate these inequities and enable Greenburgh to,once again be a neighborly place. The village governments are willing, but unfortunately the Town Council prefers the politics of division.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-72283083978073443402007-06-09T08:12:00.000-04:002007-06-09T08:12:00.000-04:00Herb,This premise that the Town doesnt provide ser...Herb,<BR/><BR/>This premise that the Town doesnt provide services to the Villages is a lie that you keep repeating, in the hopes that people will believe it.<BR/><BR/>1. What about the Lois Bronz day care center? How many village residents use that facility?<BR/><BR/>2. Taxter Ridge -- how does that help the Villages any less than the unincorporated area? Where were you when that was acquired? Did you voice concern as to how it would be charged? <BR/><BR/>3. Kapica's Navy -- how is that helping any of the unincorporated area?<BR/><BR/>4. The TDY Center??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-92050538426086065202007-06-08T22:13:00.000-04:002007-06-08T22:13:00.000-04:00You really think that Sir Francis, Steve & Eddie, ...You really think that Sir Francis, Steve & Eddie, and Diane (is she still awake) are not going to play patty-cake with Bob B. anymore?<BR/><BR/>If so, I have a bridge to sell you in Greenburgh!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-82264693531565406312007-06-08T21:36:00.000-04:002007-06-08T21:36:00.000-04:00Not only did Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes, Diana J...Not only did Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes, Diana Juettner vote with Feiner to purchase Taxter Ridge, they also voted (along with Francis Sheehan) to appeal the Taxter Ridge lawsuit.Todays news about the Appellate Division should send Bernstein a message that he may not be listened to by the council in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-76224723595295639622007-06-08T21:32:00.000-04:002007-06-08T21:32:00.000-04:00To answer 9:01's question, at least in part, villa...To answer 9:01's question, at least in part, villages have to be part of a town because N Y State recognizes only three entities -- cities, towns and Indian reservations. Hence villages have to have a formal legal relationship with a town. But 9:01 is right -- the town provides virtually no services for the villages, because under the N Y Village Law the villages provide for themselves the services that the town government provides for the unincorporated area. The few services that a town provides to the villages are usually charged back to the villages, which is eminently fair.<BR/><BR/>It is an outdated situation, but there it is, and it leads to the problems that have developed, but I don't want to get into that.<BR/><BR/>There are remedies, but there is much institutional bias against those remedies. To many oxen to be gored. Maybe some creative thinking will come up with remedies that are easy.<BR/><BR/>Of course if people decided to live in harmony -- to live and let live -- these legal peculiarities wouldn't create difficulties. That is the way it was once upon a time three or four years ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-70089681048904528862007-06-08T21:01:00.000-04:002007-06-08T21:01:00.000-04:00Doesn't anyone see that this structure of villages...Doesn't anyone see that this structure of villages and an unincorporated area is just nuts? Legal structures can be changed, so I don't understand why the residents of Greenburgh (village and unincorporated) allow this system to continue.<BR/><BR/>What services, specifically, does the township provide for the villages that the villages cannot handle on their own? Maybe there is some vital reason that villages need to be associated with a township, but I truly can't think of anything.<BR/><BR/>If the township does need to exist for some reason, it still seems to me that if you took the unincorporated area and divided it into three villages (north, central, south), that everything would function more cooperatively and efficiently, with a whole lot less drama.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-12049809662772566662007-06-08T18:47:00.000-04:002007-06-08T18:47:00.000-04:00Dear 4:44,It certainly is convenient to have a whi...Dear 4:44,<BR/><BR/>It certainly is convenient to have a whipping boy on hand to point to -- that alone is reason to keep Feiner in office. However, on hand to raise their hands and say "aye let's buy" were Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes and Diana Juettner, even if she had to be woken up to vote. They all heard Bernstein, except Juettner who was sleeping, and they all chose to ignore him.<BR/><BR/>You see I am an equal opportunity blame sharer. If you earn it, you should be remembered for it. So if I have to, every time I see blame not being shared, I'm going to remind everyone until they learn to include all the parties.<BR/>Just three votes is only the shorthand but you know I can make that stretch out to paragraphs. I will do so until I think that everyone has gotten the message.<BR/>And when I read your posting it reaffirms that the message has not yet been learned.<BR/><BR/>Don't be lazy, repeat aloud after me or even write it down on your next posting.<BR/><BR/>Steve Bass voted to buy Taxter Ridge and ran in 2003.<BR/>Eddie Mae Barnes voted to buy Taxter Ridge and ran in 2003.<BR/>Diana Juettner voted to buy Taxter<BR/>Ridge (snore...)<BR/>and<BR/>Paul Feiner voted to buy Taxter Ridge and ran in 2003.<BR/><BR/>Who knows, it could even become a movement.<BR/><BR/>But now that it is bought, ask any of them why there is no capital budget allocation for Taxter Ridge planned for at least through 2009.<BR/>Think of it as the Park that everyone in New York State is eligible to use; that Greenburgh alone is obligated to maintain and no one in New York, even if from unincorporated or incorporated can use. <BR/><BR/>Because there is no parking, lighting, emergency facilities, etc.<BR/><BR/>If the Town Board can't answer this conundrum; ask Danny Gold of East Irvington what leverage he held over the then Town Board.<BR/><BR/>So, again Taxter Ridge was voted by the equal votes of Steve Bass (running this fall), Eddie Mae Barnes (running this fall), Diana Juettner (sleepwalking for another two years) and Paul Feiner (running this fall).<BR/><BR/>Be consistent in your voting.<BR/>They were and still are consistent in their voting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-44533657017891141072007-06-08T16:44:00.000-04:002007-06-08T16:44:00.000-04:00Kolesar swings and misses once again. The Taxter R...Kolesar swings and misses once again. <BR/><BR/>The Taxter Ridge acquisition was actively supported by the Villages of Irvington and Tarrytown, and by the Irvington School District, which besides serving East Irvington in unincorporated G'burgh, serves all of the village of Irvington and a portion of the village of Tarrytown.<BR/><BR/>The Irvington School District stood to benefit the most from the acquisition because of its concern that the 200 acres of Taxter Ridge would be developed residentially -- a prospect it feared would result in an infusion of new school-age children and a forced expansion of their schools.<BR/><BR/>The Villages of Irvington and Tarrytown supported the acquisition provided, however, that the town's costs were charged exclusively to the town's unincorporated areas. <BR/><BR/>At the town board meetings both before and after the town board vote on Taxter Ridge, Edgemont resident Bob Bernstein warned repeatedly that the town would be acting illegally if it proceeded to purchase the property and tax only the unincorporated areas of the town. <BR/><BR/>In fact, Bernstein urged Feiner again and again to contact the village mayors to let them know that their residents may be on the hook for Taxter, but Feiner ignored him.<BR/><BR/>The only way village residents would have known back then that they may be on the hook for Taxter Ridge was if they had showed up or watched the town board meetings on cable -- and only if they happened to tune in when Bernstein was given his five minutes to speak. <BR/><BR/>There was never any other discussion of the matter. <BR/><BR/>This was back in 2003 -- another election year -- and Feiner was determined to acquire Taxter Ridge come hell or high water before election day and he did not want this dispute over who pays to get in the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-34112186356306273352007-06-08T15:52:00.000-04:002007-06-08T15:52:00.000-04:00Dear Anonymous 1:14 PM,First, as Hal likes to corr...Dear Anonymous 1:14 PM,<BR/><BR/>First, as Hal likes to correctly point out, it took (and takes) just 3 votes. Taxter Ridge was not acquired by the Supervisor acting on his own. <BR/><BR/>The problem has been the beneign neglect of the Villages in participating in actions or proposed actions of the town Board. Shame on us !<BR/><BR/>The "recent" Village activism stems from a few incidents: the unfortunate tree case, where the Town was woefully under insured and then passed a portion of this liability back to the Villages. The Town insurance polices did not and do not cover the Villages per se for an event like that if it should happen in a Village. Using the logic recently articulated during the public hearing on the volunteer firefighter and ambulance property tax assessment reduction, if we already have it or pay for it separately, it shouldn't be charged to the Villages. The State Comptroller's opinion offered that, but the Town Board rejected that, including the Supervisor.<BR/><BR/>Re Taxter Ridge, the Villages (at least Ardsley, Hastings and Dobbs Ferry to the best of my recollection) weren't pushing for this. A few individuals near the site (and I think residents of unincorporated Greenburgh) were the proponents and the Villages for the most part were asleep. Hopefully now the Villages have learned their lesson and know better, but I'm not convinced by the lack of participation on issues that could come back to haunt the Villages such as granting the sidewalk waiver re the Greenburgh Health Center. <BR/><BR/>Push too hard and one won't have to worry about a contested election between Democrats and Republicians in the Town, but a "Village" party and an "unincorporated" party. That would be interestingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33594888.post-76997817183897804682007-06-08T15:13:00.000-04:002007-06-08T15:13:00.000-04:00We have been hearing forever that village voters o...We have been hearing forever that village voters outnumber the unincorporated area voters and that is why Feiner wins and rewards the vilages. How silly.<BR/><BR/>Village voters have voted right along with the unincorporated area voters. That's why the Town Board consists of unincorporated area residents, with the exception of Juettner who has been there for 15 years and who is hardly an advocate for the villages. Even in 2005, when Feiner ran with two challengers,the villages voted with the unincorporated area and voted for Sheehan and Juettner, who had more votes than Greenawalt.<BR/><BR/>So cut the BS. If this year village residents stop voting along with the unincorporated area it is becasuse the Town Council has shown itself hostile to the legitimate requests of the villages and they kowtow to the loud and demanding voices in the town, mostly Edgemont voices. A word to the wise?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com