Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another Paul Feiner initiative to make Greenburgh the most open government in the United States!
Be part of the Dialogue...participate...tell us what's on your mind...!
The views expressed in this blog are the personal views of the participants who post comments on the blog and are not those of the town, town employees or town government. The Supervisors views are his alone.
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(417)
-
▼
August
(25)
- TWN BD MOVES FORWARD ON 7 DAY A WEEK COMMUNITY CEN...
- TOWN BD AUTHORIZES E HARTSDALE AVE FLOOD STUDY
- GREENBURGH DEMOCRACY- POST YOUR COMMENTS = WEEK OF...
- REQUESTING BD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION WED - 7 DAY A ...
- library construction update wednesday night
- MARRIOTT TO CLOSE HEALTH CLUB TO COMMUNITY
- WEEK OF AUGUST 20-- GREENBURGH DEMOCRACY--POST YOU...
- 150 PEOPLE PARTICIPATED IN ROAD TO FREEDOM WALK
- 17 units of housing to be built on knollwood road
- LOTS OF INTEREST IN SEVEN DAY A WEEK POOL/COMMUNIT...
- ONE DROMORE LEGAL DEFENSE--USING OUTSIDE LAWYERS A...
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF 7 DAY A WEEK PRO...
- GREENBURGH DEMOCRACY week of August 13 Please pos...
- NEED TO BEAUTIFY E HARTSDALE AVE
- GREENBURGH GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN'T COMPETE AT COUNTY ...
- SAVE THE DATE: SEPTEMBER 9th DOG SWIM
- THANK YOU, BLOGGER
- POLICE CHIEF: STATE BRIDGES ARE SAFE
- ROAD TO FREEDOM WALK...AUGUST 19
- OLD TOWN HALL ALMOST ALL DOWN..
- PROCRASTINATION ALERT: PLANNING BD AND ZONING BD V...
- REQUEST MEETING WITH STATE/COUNTY OFFICIALS TO DIS...
- GREENBURGH DEMOCRACY--WEEK OF AUG 6. Please post y...
- 27 MAIN STREET, DOBBS FERRY-- WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ...
- STUMP THE YARD OUTDOOR MOVIE AT MASSARO NEXT FRIDA...
-
▼
August
(25)
185 comments:
It has been several days since Francis Sheehan has been subpeopned concerning his Dromore Road antics, he was not seen at the Zoning Board Meeting as he loves to attend in order to show his presence; So here's the question: Do you know where your councilman is?
Isn't it ironic that Francis Sheehan teaches Criminal Justice and now the legal noose is beginning to tighten around his neck?????? I guess Francis is a "do as I say and not as I do" type of teacher.
Edgemont leaders will cost Berger the election.
last week we learned that feiner took 10 grand in campaign contributions from disbarred attorney chase caro from the mayfair - knollwood section. (was this part of their lobbying effort to get feiner to approve the multi-million dollar give-a-way championed by feiner?) a person with true integrity would return the money to chase caro's victims. feiner has not done that. i really wonder - how does feiner sleep at night knowing he is using tainted and possibly stolen money?
10:59
This is a stretch indeed. Caro made alot of money as an attorney. To try to pin the concept that Feiner took tainted money is even a stretch for the Sheehan/Bernstein CABAL. If I were Bob Bernstein or Sheehan, I would be more worried about getting Bass and Barnes elected. Suzanne Berger needs to be written off at this point. She has run a most dissapointing campaign. Her failure to energize voters might also cost Bass and Barnes their seats on the Board. Where will that leave Sheehan/Bernstein?????
Did you see Caro hand Feiner the money or have you seen a copy of a check .If so let me know when and how.
According to the district attorney's press release, chase caro ownes hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution to his victims. feiner should return the 10 grand to the victims.
feiner took 10 grand in campaign contributions from chase caro and his associates. the money should be returned to his victims.
NY Lawyer Admits Ripping Off Elderly Client
New York Lawyer
June 22, 2007
A White Plains attorney pleaded guilty to stealing $470,143, the proceeds of a 2006 Peekskill house sale, from an elderly client, the Westchester County District Attorney's Office announced yesterday.
Chase Caro, 49, practiced in White Plains and New York City, the New York Law Journal reports. He ignored numerous requests to transfer the money owed after the payment of litigation related fees, instead using the money for personal and business expenses, the DA's office said.
He eventually sent the client a check for $310,000, but it bounced, according to the district attorney.
Mr. Caro was arrested in January and has been free on bail; he was suspended from the practice of law in March. He faces 2 to 6 years in prison on his plea to one count of second-degree grand larceny.
Restitution in the amount of $780,000 to the original victim and an additional victim identified during the investigation will be considered at Mr. Caro's Oct. 29 sentencing
I'm a little confused?
Is Caro running for some elected office in Greenburgh?
Did he give any money to anyone on the Town Board after he was convicted?
Did his contributions to anyone on the Town Board bounce?
Did Caro have only one Client?
Was Caro at the secret meetings in Harrison with Bernstein, McNally, Bass and Sheehan?
Is Caro one of Bernstein's designees?
Why is anyone writing about Caro?
Has Feiner admitted that he received this money . Was it listed on his contributors list. It seems a bit funny that all blogers who lists contributions from lawyers to Feiner all come up with the same figure$10,000.00.I would like to meet some of these lawyers, to help out with my campaign in running against Sheehan.
I would like for you to have these lawyers swear under oath that they did what they are accused of.
One would think that with contributions of that size that Feiner was running for the presidency of the USA.
You know these comments will not hurt Feiner at all,in this election
If he did receive contributions of that size he has them listed.
What surprises me is that you all are trying to implicate Feiner in a criminal act. If a lawyer friend was convicted of a crime, what does it have to do with Feiner.
A lawyer in Edgemont,is accused of a criminal act,together with some of the board members,why are you not persuing this matter in the same manner.
Your hatred for Feiner has made him stronger,so keep up the good work. A lot of us want him as supervisor for a few more years.
Thank you.
By the way I think it was once mentioned that he helped a few of the board members with their campaigns,with contributions that he had received.
I dont see you mentioning that they should return the money to
whomever contributed it.
You're only out to get Feiner. too bad, it wont work.
\\\\\
feiner retained caro in 2006 to illegally assist feiner in "honoring" the "promises" to send millions of dollars to caro's neighborhood and school district (the westhelp deal). of course, the whole westhelp deal was ruled to be both illegal and entered into based on a number of lies told by feiner (including the whopper that homeless kids in the shelter would use the valhalla school district). feiner's retention of caro appears to have been illegal. thats why we are talking about feiner and caro (a admitted felon) and there will be more talk about this tomorrow. stay tuned.
If Feiner commited a criminal act when this took place why wasn't this taken up at the date in question.
Stop pulling on straws.
You just can't understand that the people who write on this blog are getting tired of your cheap talk.
What about your buddy Berger,has she not received money illegally from her firm for a favor to receive a contract of close to six figures,and received money from some judges,and received money from some people in Yonkers,in charge of all the construction along the Greenburgh corridoor. Well I guess that's ok with you,there's nothing wrong with receiving this kind of money.is there.Come on now stop your bsing script.It's the same old tune over and over again. .
This Sheehan/Bernstein script is not scoring any points with the voting public. However, it is indicative as to the desperation on the part of the CABAL. It is Sheehan who is running away from subpeonas, not Feiner. It is Sheehan, Bass, Barnes and Juetner who are alleged to have met illegally with a developer at the developers office in Harrison, not Feiner. It is Sheehan, Bass, Barnes and Juetner who have conspired with Bernstein to get the property at Dromore Road to Bernstein to do with it as he seems fit, not Feiner. The only sleeze in this campaign is the anti-Feiner CABAL and Suzanne Berger who allows it to happen.
Dear Mr. Garfunkel -
(I have posted this comment both here and in the August 13th section as that section is about to "roll off" the immediately viewable portion of the blog. It refers to your posting in the Agust 13th section on August 20th at 12:46PM.)
There is another possible explanation for the Troy affidavit averring that Barnes and Bass were trying to engineer a deal for an Edgemont Town Hall. The deponent might just be shading the truth. A reasonable person might infer that the affidavit contains errors of fact because your nemesis Bernstein would never refer to the allegedly proposed use as a Town Hall when the proper term would, if that were the intended use, designate the parcel for a Village Hall. The only people who refer to Edgemont's investigation of incorporating as a village as an attempted secession are a small, very intense group who, for reasons they have never articulated, fear even the discussion. If Greenburgh can have six villages, why is a seventh such heresy? If Edgemont voters chose to incorporate what would be inherently wrong with their choice?
Please stop using the emotional charged, and completely inaccurate, term "secession". Only the incorporated villages have threatened to leave Greenburgh - Edgemont never has.
Ah, Mr. Lasser. But suppose Mr. Troy is not shading the truth.
He may not use the word "secession" in its purest form because he is probably not up on the political posturing and shenanigans in Greenburgh. He may not be aware of the distinction between a village hall and a town hall. I bet that many Greenburgh residents don't speak the lingo perfectly.
But if he is not shading the truth (and his affidavit sounds very persuasive to me, knowing the chracters involved) then there was discussion about making Edgemont into a separate village and Bernstein acquiring the land, or power over it, for an Edgemont municipal building (I won't get into the town hall/village hall confusion).
Now you may think that Edgemont as a separate village is OK, and others may agree with you. But it is such a significant issue, with such enormous ramifications forBe real Mr. Lasser the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh, that I think that you will agree it should not be worked out secretly by the Town Council and your friends Bernstein and McNally.
Using gimmicks like park districts to surrepritiously force the owner to sell the land (charging only Edgemont taxpayers)and letting Bernstein run the deal instead of doing it in the ordinary and legal manner, is definitely not OK.
I notice that some people are being quite defensive and changing the subject. However one may feel about the town government and Feiner, there should be unanimous criticism of what the Town Council did, and Bernstein should be told to cut it out. Swelled though his head is, it is now close to bursting.
the only one shading the truth is mr troy. because of this, he had to submit a revised affidavit after he was caught lying about what maps he looked at. the whole dromore matter is a mere tempest in a teapot - nothing of consequence happened. the property is and always was zoned single family, something the troys knew all along. stay tuned.
Again, if things are so cut and dry as you claim, why was Francis last seen running from the Zoning Board Meeting at an Olympic Pace?????
Jim Lasser,
Is this the best you can do, painfully straining at the definitions between a Village and a Town? If Bernstein and McNally were sent on their acquisition mission by your community, simply produce the evidence. Were they charged by either the Edgemont Comunity Council or the Greenridge Civic Association with acquiring this property? It would be very easy for someone in your esteemed position to produce the minutes of the meetings when that motion was passed. Put up or shut up. While we are on the subject, do you feel that the Town Council should sign sworn afadavits stating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the meeting at Troy's office in Harrison? It would seem that Good Government would call for such a revelation prior to the Primaries, now wouldn't it Jim.
The difference between secession and incorporation is significant. A village would continue to pay taxes to the Town of Greenburgh - an independent Town would not. Only the exisiting villages appear interested in terminating their obligations. We can continue the conversation when you identify yourself.
Lasser lost all credibility on this blog when he let the council members skate on the open meetings law musical chairs game.
Jim-
You certainly are not under oath here, forced to answer against your will. However, your avoidance of the main issue is clear for all to see.
Do you have minutes of civic meetings to support Bernsteins & McNally's involvement with acquiring the Dromore RD property?
Do you support the Town Council revealing to all what happened at the Troy Meeting in Harison under oath?
Discussing the definitions and responsibilities of Town VS Village does not really bring us any closer to the truth, now does it Jim?
Lasser has not lost credibility. His silence means that Bernstein and McNally were operating a rogue operation, without the consent of the people from Edgemont. He just does not want to say that publicly.
didn't caro give to spitzer
didn't caro give to cuomo
didn't caro give to many prominent state and national officials?
According to 6:41 the only one who committed a crime was Feiner. 6:41 doesn't have the guts to go after Spitzer or Como,or any other politico.Why because he knows these other politians would make mince meat out of him.
He's nothing but a coward,going after the small guy.
After reading a flyer sent in the mail by Lady Berger,we will be saving a lot of money.
In her own words we will not need a comptroller,since she is an experienced auditor.
We will not need a town attorney,since she knows the laws.
We will not have any law suits because she will see to it that everything will under her control,
All the parks need not worry she has the solution to keep them in tip top shape,
She will get herself involved in school business.
final quote she will not need anyone else to run the town,because she knows how things will be done once she's supervisor.
This is where we save money,
no comptroller-
no town attorney
no parks dept.head
and above all no council members.
Vote for Berger and all this money will be saved because she thinks that she has the capabilities to fill all these slots herself. Suzanne Berger, An Army of One.
This was posted on the tailend of last week's Democracy -Week of August 13th. I have not made or contributed any anonymous remarks in answer to your letter on the August 13th or 20th Democracy posting or anyone elses! rjg
Mr. Lasser-
Thanks for your letter. You know Bernstein better than I do, and you may have a better sense of what he has been up to. But in my reading of the affadavit, it seems to me that Bernstein had to play out his hand so that Troy would accept a smaller piece of the pie. Is that so? Maybe!
Does Edgemont have a right to form itself into a village? I believe they have that right. Do the numbers work? Maybe! can they be tweaked? Maybe!
But some of my friends in Edgemont, and I do have friends there, are long-time political people, one was even a party official, do not think it will work. Others say that the Edgemont study committee (EVEC) rejected the concept.But times and attitudes change. We all know nothing is set in stone.
Franly I believe in political choices and the two-party system. It is important for our community and the country. If it cannot work, lets go to an open primary and a runoff, and let everyone vote.
But today the primary rules, and only a fraction of the electorate will participate. That's too bad!
With regards to this blog, you at least sign your name, with three or so others. Does that signify that all of us have not written anonymously? No! But for sure there is no solid proof of the authorship of any of this claptrap! But, it is interesting that 95% of all of the criticism brought on Paul Feiner comes from anonymous contributions.
Hal Samis and myself (and we do not communicate or coordinate our thoughts under any stretch of the imagination,) have defended Paul Feiner and have attacked his opponents, and his political rivals, on the Board and off it, from different perspectives.
Samis was a brutal critic of Paul's, and time and time again, I defended Paul from his attacks. I have no partnership with him. But he has shown great insight and reason on this blog. Maybe he feels that Paul is the lesser of two evils or he has started to understand Paul's style of governing.
But for whatever reason, politics is the art of the possible, and compared to the average politician in Westchester, from Nick Spano to Clinton Young and to many others, Paul is an honest hard-working saint.
Yes, he has raised money! Is it tainted money, which bought his vote? No!
That's the bottom line. If people don't like Chase Caro, or decisions on WestHelp or other issues then vote for Berger. I would be astounded if any thinking person believes she is qualified. I believe she has been incredibly unfair as the party chairperson. I saw her in action in the summer of 2004 at a gathering of Kerry supporters at Rudy's Beau Rivage. She was hoorible and unfair to Paul then and there. Before I knew who the hell she was, I asked her why Paul was not allowed to speak! Of course she had no good reason, but said to me that it was Brodsky's party and he decided the agenda. So she the party boss, or tool, and played perfectly the role of the stooge. Well she still is one!
But this blog, which reflects much of the vitriole displayed at the Town Board over the last five years, is basically a forum for character assassination. Robert Bernstein is the new leader of that fading pack, which I characterized as the CABAL years ago. Even one unidentified wag (moron) accused me of anti-Semitism. That's a stretch! If I ever confront that slanderer he/she would need a new head.
Most of them, and I will not recount their names, have fallen by the wayside. They were either bored with their own rethoric or became tired of the counter-attacks. I came into this picture five years ago as a political person from White Plains, who was fed up with the Democratic organization there. I know, and get along quite well, with all the personalities from Al Delvecchio, to Joe Delfino, to Mike Keating, to Glen Hockley, to Paul Schwarz and all the others one can think of. I just got tired or party politics, and when Richard Ottinger, who my wife worked for for eight years, retired in the 1980's, I concentrated on national issues.
By accident I wound up in Greenburgh, and was invited down to the Town Hall by Paul Feiner and got an earful. Since that time I felt compelled to form a defense for Paul, for whom I regard as a decent full-time progressive politician, who likes new ideas and puts people first. I know political people all over the County, including County Legislator Marty Rogowsky, who is the current majority leader. I was his campaign manager in 1976. Most political people I know have a high respect for Paul's energy, work and concern for people.
So he has been in a long-time and he has beaten many people like Tolchin, Bronz, Abinanti, Greenawalt and others. He's not a glad-hander, and not a deal-maker, and not an organization flunky, but an independent hard-working Supervisor, and, yes, a politician. But his enemies have never forgotten their losses and he stands in the way of the Brodsky thirst for power.
So since "November Doesn't Count," and the election will be decided in September, you have one choice!
It is in the primary, and the choice must be Feiner and his running mates. This way Bernstein and his acolytes will fade away and we will go back to normality.
But thanks for contributing to civil discourse. I wish only that the personal attacks that started with Krauss, O'Shea, Sheehan and many others would finally cease. I believe that with a Feiner victory and a clean sweep a new and more harmonious era will begin.
Richard J. Garfunkel
PS: To the moron that is hung up over the wall at Presser Park, get a life. If I had room on my townhouse lawn I would gladly have that wall. I am gratified and honored that many youngsters put the time and effort into remembering the fallen heroes and innocent souls lost on 9/11!
8/20/2007 9:45 PM
Dear Mr. Garfunkle,
If Feiner wins, we will go back to more lawsuits (where the Town loses), more visits from the NYS Comptroller's office telling us the Town accounting is wrong, more Town expenditures that cant be justified, and more campaign contributions from developers and their attorneys.
Oh wait, you're right, that is normal for Greenburgh.
gaffy - you need new glasses
the wall is a hideous eyesore that was foisted on the neighborhood without its consent or input. it signifies nothing. it has no artistic merit. the use of FEMA funds for its construction is sickening. its nothing short of a sick joke the dupervisor and his merry band of idiots on the town board played on the town to get publicity. show some guts - demand that this profane monstrosity be torn down. we got serra's wall taken down in nyc, we will get rid of this one too and your buddy feiner too.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Greenburgh, NY (August 20, 2007) Today, Robert B. Bernstein, Edgemont attorney, civic leader and long-time Greenburgh resident, filed a citizen complaint before Greenburgh’s newly constituted ethics board, charging Paul J. Feiner, Supervisor, with multiple violations. The complaint, contained in a 21-page sworn statement, states that Feiner violated the New York State Penal Code barring “official misconduct,” NYS General Municipal Law and the Code of Ethics of the Town of Greenburgh.
These serious charges link Feiner’s acceptance of “staggering” amounts of campaign contributions dating back to 1998 to some of the most controversial development projects in Greenburgh. Contributions from the Town’s largest residential and commercial developers and their representatives are clearly connected to active applications before the Town.
Since 1998 and continuing to the present day, Feiner has solicited and accepted over $30,000 from these sources with pending projects before the Town. Some examples:
Stone Ridge Manor, a 40-unit luxury apartment complex behind Central Avenue in the Edgemont section, faced strong community and school board opposition because of its impact on the school and continuing congestion in the area. Feiner accepted $10,000 over a two-year period from the developers and voted to allow a re-zoning of the property from single to multifamily, without disclosing the financial support he received from the developers. The developers recently sold the project for just under $30 million.
From January 1998 to April 2003, Feiner accepted another $10,000 from a Mayfair Knollwood lawyer, his family and an employee. This lawyer represented the Valhalla School District and worked out an arrangement which resulted in Greenburgh taxpayers almost losing out on $1.2 million in revenues from the WestHELP contract with Westchester County to support a homeless shelter near the Mayfair Knollwood neighborhood. The sweetheart deal was intended to give the Valhalla School District some $650,000 each year for ten years. In 2007 the NYS Comptroller found the gift to Valhalla to be illegal
Before the final state comptroller’s report on Valhalla, Feiner was aware back in 2006 of the state’s concerns regarding the legality of the Valhalla deal. Despite this, Feiner retained the Mayfair Knollwood lawyer to represent the Town and the Supervisor, pro bono, in the WestHELP matter and to ensure that Feiner’s “commitments” to the Mayfair community were honored. Feiner acted unilaterally, without the required Town Board approval, in retaining the attorney. In January, 2007 this lawyer, who had given Feiner $10,000, was arrested, and charged with grand larceny for stealing from elderly clients. He pleaded guilty to a felony, was disbarred, and faces up to six years in prison.
Other “pay for play” deals which benefited Feiner handsomely in campaign contributions include, among others, $4,750 from a developer with an application to rezone a 86-unit subdivision near Glenville Woods, $6,950 from Avalon II developers seeking approval for 800 garden apartments off of Taxter Ridge and Route 119, $3,250 from developers with a controversial application before the Town to expand a strip mall, etc.
These and many other developer-funded campaign contributions to Feiner are detailed in the Verified Citizen Complaint and extensive supporting documents/exhibits filed by Bernstein with the Greenburgh Ethics Board.
In filing the complaint, Mr. Bernstein stated: “I am hopeful that the Ethics Board will carefully review the facts I have assembled regarding Paul Feiner’s deeply disturbing and illegal manner of soliciting and accepting money from those seeking land use approval from the Town. Mr. Feiner’s audacious campaign fund-raising machine is harmful to the interests of the Greenburgh taxpayer, and fails to provide a level-playing field for other businesses which operate outside these influence-peddling schemes. Greenburgh deserves better leadership and much more open, honest and ethical government.”
###
Robert B. Bernstein has been an attorney for more than 25 years. He works for an international law firm in New York and was recently named a "Superlawyer" for the metro New York area by Superlawyer Magazine, a publication that uses surveys of lawyers to select the top 5% of lawyers in regions throughout the United States.
Grassroots for Greenburgh is a web-based vehicle for the dissemination of information and news about Greenburgh and its environs. The text of the Bernstein verified complaint can be found on the Press Releases page at: http://grassrootsforgreenburgh.home.att.net
Lawsuits happen in, and with every town and city, please be advised. Many are done by citizens and lawyers like Robert Brenstein who have axes to grind. It is nothing new! Somehow one seems to believe that they can be completely avoided. By the way, developers have been part and parcel in America since the Pilgrims. I lived in Prospect Park in White Plains, where apple orchards used to flourish and the Hessians watered their horses. There have been homes there since the 1920's.
Usually municipalities have Zoning and Planning Boards to determine needs and help direct their elected officials. But Luddites, thinking that progress and growth are inherently evil, are fools!
All of the communities without commercial development have sky-high confiscatory taxes. Just wander around Rye, Larchmont and Bronxville. In Edgemont, 65% of the taxes goes to the school system, 19% to the Town of Greenburgh and those taxes haven't increased in two years. In fact, they probably should have, but the Board squandered the reserve. The remaining taxes go to the County and for sewers and fire protection.
If you are referring to WestHelp, then please understand it was not Town money and the Board voted 5-0 with the Supervisor. Where was their oversight?
You are making hyperbolic generalities that have little to do with the quality of life in Greenburgh.
If you wish to vote against Paul Feiner, understand who you will get! Suzanne Berger is a part-time political hack underboss, who has zero experience in government, lost her only election for the position of village judge, and has engineered a 6 to 7 figure contract for her law firm, through her buddy Francis Sheehan. She states in her piece of literature that she has a vision for Greenburgh! What is that vision? She has not talked at a Town Board meeting in years, except to defend her law firm's campaign gifts that make up her war chest. She has yet to explain her ideas on how to make school taxes go down, and Central 7's quality go up. I thought that was up to the independent Board of Education that mantra and fiat is to create school policy! She states that she knows how to stay out of court! How?
She wants to keep our neighborhoods first rate! What's her master plan? She says she wants housing for our teachers and police officers. Does she want it on Dromore Road in Edgemont?
My sense is that Ms. Berger knows very little about Greenburgh. She probably intends to hire a Town Manager, only answerable to Francis Sheehan, and she will keep her day job in NYC and come up to Greenburgh on weekends and for the twice monthly Board meetings. She's looking for a nice cushy judgeship and will get quite bored with Greenburgh in a year or so!
Will she be a 24/7 Supervisor? I doubt it! So she will certainly end the petty squabbles in Greenburgh by not showing up!
Dream on ye fools! Hatred of Paul Feiner will not make silk purse from a sow's ear.
Richard J. Garfunkel
PS- I assume Super Bob wrote this last piece- in fact, I gather he has written most of them. He told the NY Times that he would devote countless hours to the defeat of Paul Feiner. get a life! Also note Bob Bernstein has claimed that Paul Feiner raised $30,000 OVER TEN YEARS! That's about $3,000 per year. But, hold the presses, Ms. Berger has raised over $30,000 in one year and most of it from her law firm, judges, and Democratic City machine politicians. Where's the ethics charge against her?
bob bernstein wants to divert attention away from his one dromore road mis-behavior
And feiner's vision is - supervisor for life! under feiner , greenburgh has reached a political dead end. his most current term has been his worst, especially with his continued defense of the illegal WestHelp deal and taking money from the town's independent auditors.
16 years is enough. We need a new supervisor.
"Will she be a 24/7 Supervisor?"
We don't need a 24/7 Supervisor. Greenburgh is not Mayberry RFD; we're a major municipality, just like any Westchester city, but somehow we choose to be stuck in an antiquated structure.
We need an 8am-4pm executive management professional who has been properly educated and has successful experience in performing the role of CEO. Berger nor Feiner seem to meet the needs of the Town.
Pro-Feiner or anti-Feiner, it seems odd that Greenburgh residents choose to allow people to hold elected offices for more than 4-6 years. It's just not healthy for the organization.
amen 6:43. the bernstein complaint documents the end result of feiner's long term tenure - cozy relationships with developers and others who want to peddle their influence in exchange for oodles of cash to perpetuate his political career.
Poor Bob,
His timing is off. Its late August Bob and the primary is only four weeks away. Not enough time for the Ethics Board to take a look before the primary. You will get some publicity but that will lead to Garfunkel and company countering with an Ethics Board complainst against Sheehan, Barnes, Juetner and Bass. Its a draw. You won't win. Your constant carping will also leave you open to someone filing a complaint against you personally for your inapropriate Dromore Road behavior. Bob, lose the obsessive behavior. People are tired of it and you are not doing your friends on the board any good.
More examples of Feiner's responsiveness. Part of being the "People's Supervisor" is bringing an activist government to people and positively impacting their lives. All the critics out there who screetch "mismanagement" don't understand the public's need to see and feel a caring government!
These are real people, and they represent thousands of others. There is no substitute for action.
By the way re-printing these letters to the Journal News has nothing to do with copyright! They offered their views and they own them!
Feiner came through for family, deaf child I have a sign on my front lawn that says, "I'm with Paul." After my positive experience with town government, it might better read as, "Paul's with Me." Paul Feiner is running for re-election as Greenburgh supervisor, and I have good reason to support him.
I recently needed to have a "Deaf Child'' sign posted on our street following the diagnosis of my child's hearing loss. After e-mailing Paul on an early Saturday morning, I received a reply the same day acknowledging receipt of my request and copying me on his direction to the police chief to have the signs installed. In less than two weeks they were up - no other municipality has ever been as responsive to my needs as a citizen. As a prominent and avid supporter of the New York School for the Deaf, Feiner also sponsored my daughter in the 2007 "Walk4Hearing'' at Rockefeller State Park.
Responding to the needs of the people is the hallmark of good government, and I urge town resident's to support Paul Feiner's re-election.
John Paine
Tarrytown
Feiner was helpful with utility problem!
I want to express my thanks to Paul Feiner, our Greenburgh town supervisor, for all his help in solving my problem with one of our utility companies. Without his involvement and help I would be still "banging my head against the wall,'' as they say. Paul is the kind of supervisor and leader we need to keep in our Town of Greenburgh.
John Pearson
Tarrytown
feiner is a hoax. anyone can put up a sign - the real challenge is taking them down. feiner puts up a hideous wall in front of presser park (his original attempt to put it up in the hartsdale near the old supermarket (now eckerds) was stopped by the local residents).
the entire town is littered with old, faded, unnecessary and damaged signage - what has feiner done? nothing. feiner thinks he can fool everyone with his supervisor pothole act. these micro actions mask his venal side -doing the bidding of developers with their mammoth projects that are overwhelming greenburgh and its school districts. read the bernstein complaint and weep for a town that feiner has sold out.
The hell with the signs - the Town code is littered with old, tattered and unenforceable ordinances and rules. Stop ignoring past mistakes - be a man and correct them. It's perfectly OK to make a mistake, but to make the same mistake, like soliciting illegal campaign contributions, over and over and over again bespeaks a disrespect for the law and a personal arrogance with ill-become one who would lead.
I hope you will return to your roots - as an outsider to government and a gadfly constantly focused on the failings of our elected officials, rather than being one of them.
gadflies (like revolutionaries) have no talent in governing. feiner's continued presence in office is a prescription for the town becoming like the central seven school district. after 16 years in office - what justification is there for another feiner term? none.
But what justification is there for a town government dominated by that egomaniacal Bernstein, that schemer Bass, and that bully Sheehan, with Berger being their gimmick to defeat Paul (it ain't gonna happen, by the way).
None.
Feiner may be less than smooth, and given to poor judgment from time to time. But he is open and honest (yes, even though the Bernstein clique is always untruthfully accusing him of corruption). And our taxes have been relatively low, and people are happy, except those professional agitators.
Bernstein's sworn affidavit doesn't leave much to the imagination.
He's shown that Feiner has taken tens of thousands of dollars from developers with applications pending. He's got all the developer contributions listed alongside the specific applications they had pending. He also talks about the $10,000 that Feiner took from convicted felon Chase Caro who's now facing a jail term.
This all looks like pretty serious stuff. What with the Westchester County DA preparing right now for Caro's sentencing, I can't imagine that DeFiore isn't pouring over Bernstein's sworn statements and supporting evidence as we speak.
hope she makes chase caro talk about why he gave feiner 10 grand and why feiner retained him.
Bernstein should be required to disclose his client list. He is spending and has spent hundreds of hours going after Feiner. He should have to disclose in a sworn affidavit 1) whether he is being retained by anyone who has had business with the town; 2)Was he an investor in any real estate deal that the town rejected. Others who file complaints to the Ethics Board should also have to disclose potential conflicts.
Is it possible that some of the bad guys are hiring Bernstein to knock Feiner out of office? I'd like to know.
Chase Caro is a big NYC contributor to political campaigns and was heavily involved in fundraising for Governor Spitzer, Attorney General Cuomo, Mark Green, US Senators and other nationally recognized leaders. He is the son of pulitzer prize winner Robert Caro.
therefore what? chase caro is a crook.
So what if caro is a crook. Does that make the people he has contributed to crooks? is Spitzer a crook? Are Mark Green and Andrew Cuomo crooks? Are the other officials crooks?
Of all the disgusting things that Bernstein has done -- and it is hard to keep count -- the effort to transfer caro's thievery on to Paul Feiner is the most disgusting.
Bernstein's obsession concerning Paul mirrors Sheehan's. It is a sickness. Bernstein has left himself wide open to have charges filed against himself. So has Sheehan. This type of behavior serves to create concern for the future. When Paul wins, what new behavior is Sheehan/Bernstein capable of?
Bernstein's obsession is not with Paul Feiner, it is with himself. He sees himself as the center of the universe and rules don't apply to him at all. In any other municipality he would be put down by the Town Board. But in Greenburgh we have Sheehan and Bass and the two silent women.
Bernstein supported his charges against Feiner with a sworn affidavit with hundreds of pages of supporting evidence. He's also made the affidavit and supporting evidence available to the public.
Let's see if Feiner has the guts to post THAT SWORN AFFIDAVIT on the town's website. If he won't do it, the Town Council should. Greenburgh residents have a right to know what Feiner's really been up to.
funny - we have people clamoring for the so called "old gadfly" feiner instead of the insider/careerist he has become. these same folks criticize non-politician bernstein, the true exposer of feiner's gimmicks, incompetence and corruption that has the villages studying leaving greenburgh (and tarrytown and sleepy hollow considering leaving greenburgh and forming their own municipality). another two years of feiner will only be another two years of mounting ethical and legal troubles for the town and ongoing political stagnation.
The rules say public officials shouldn't solicit and accept campaign contributions from developers with applications pending before the town.
Feiner doesn't think those rules apply to him. Bernstein has produced a sworn affidavit showing that Feiner received tens of thousands of dollars from developers with applications pending before the town. He identifies the specific developers, the specific applications, and when the cash changed hands. Wow.
So Bernstein's sworn affidavit is the bible, but Troy's sworn affidavit is not to be believed.
This is the best example of the dishonesty behind Bernstein and his friends.
The sworn affadavit that you refer to contains a statement that is false and could lead to perjury charges:
On Page 13 Bernstein states:
"Furthermore, even though the Town has now amended its Ethics Code to make clear that contributions from persons with applications pending before the Town may not be
solicited or accepted, Feiner has made clear in public statements that he intends to circumvent
that requirement by having applicants no longer make campaign contributions to his campaign
committee, as they have in the past, but rather to a new political party he has formed, entitled
“Greenburgh United Party.”
Feiner stated no such thing. What Feiner said was that the Bernstein/Sheehan inspired Ethics Code contained such large loopholes that it was easy to get around giving contributions to candidates by just giving to political parties instead.
Since this statement is part of a sworn affadavit, the rest of the affadavit as well as the complainant must now come under severe scrutiny. Failure to accurately present the facts could lead to a perjury charge being filed against Mr. Bernstein.
Mr. Bernstein, I strongly suggest that you "ammend" this part of your affidavit. It would be a shame for a smart man like yourself to lose your law license over this.
Hey 3:59PM -
Huh? In his affidavit Bernstein sets forth the sworn, public filings from Feiner's campaign committees and you find that dishonest? Troy sets forth no supporting evidence and you find that convincing?
Are you so committed to the "World According to Paul" that discussion is precluded?
Feiner had previously funded Eddie Mae Barnes campaign (before she became a Bernstein supporter). How come Bernstein doesn't go after her? Feiner also funded many previous campaigns of Juettner. Bernstein is silent about that too. Bernstein looks the other way when it comes to union dollars that Steve Bass is taking from unions that have contractual negotiations with the town.
Bernstein is playing politics. He is trying to use the Ethics Bd as an arm for his political efforts?
Who is paying Bernstein's hourly rates?
I note that what is merely a complaint to the Ethics Board has arrives wearing the costume of a
"verified complaint" or more accurately as a "press release".
I wonder how the new Ethics Board will view their recruitment as participants in a campaign season
sideshow.
I note that "Grassroots For Greenburgh" has even changed their mission statement to accommodate this.
I note that "Grassroots for Greenburgh" manager Carol Wielk is an active supporter of Suzanne Berger.
I wonder whether this is the reason that a near moribund organization, Grassroots, reinvented itself.
I note that Mr. Bernstein by "swearing upon perjury" will have some points to back pedal on and perhaps he should at the very least be accorded the same "courtesy" as afforded the Dromore developer when he too had to correct an affidavit mistake.
I wonder whether Jim Lasser will arise to questioning the statements and motives of Bob Bernstein, deponent or hold off until the Ethics Board rules.
I wonder how much of this stunt has been approved by Ms. Berger.
I used to wonder "where the yellow went"; now I know.
Lasser will not question Bernstein, at least not publicly. Mr. Lasser lives in Edgemont and is not paid to be a political commentator. The fact that he has not risen to the defense of Bernstein or McNally is indicative of the fact that he has enough intelligence to stay out of this. What it might also indicate is that there is no evidence from Edgemont Civic Groups to support the Bernstein & McNally involvement at the Troy meeting.
Dear 2:36 (Wow),
"Bernstein has produced a sworn affidavit..."
Just want to make sure that we agree that the affidavit that Bernstein has produced is his own and not someone else's sworn affidavit.
Because the basis for the citing of the contributions is not any tracing and matching of checks and deposit slips; it is information supplied by the Public Records of the Feiner campaigns. These records are required by law and the Feiner campaign has always complied with these campaign filing requirements.
In fact Mr. Bernstein has referred to these records as the source of his awareness of "who what when" contributions.
But Mr. Bernstein, given this, how can you state under oath that Feiner has not made his contribtions public? That really earns you a big WOW!
Another one of your jokes?
Two potential counts of perjury against Bob.
Why is Bernstein really spending thousands of hours trying to go after Feiner? Is he on someone's payroll? Developers? INsurance companies that didn't get what they want? If and when the ethics bd takes up Bernstein's complaint, they should require Bernstein to disclose who, if anyone other than himself, he is representing.
One law that Bernstein cites Feiner violated states that Feiner had to solicit the contributions. Herein lies the problem. How do you prove that Feiner solicited the contributions? If they just came into the campaign coffers on their own, without a specific solicitation, Bernsteins' claims go out the window.
There is nothing improper about Bernstein's allegation, under oath, that Feiner has made clear that he doesn't intend to comply with the new restrictions on accepting money from developers with applications pending.
There is, in fact, plenty of reason to believe it's true. First, Feiner has told the Journal News he thinks the new ethics code is unenforceable. That's a pretty good indication that he doesn't intend to comply right off the bat.
Second, he's said that all anyone has to do to circumvent the new restrictions is give to a political party instead of a candidate. So what does Feiner do? He forms his own political party.
Third, Feiner has said he doesn't plan on complying with the new code's financial disclosure rules -- again, because he doesn't think they're enforceable.
Finally, there's all the evidence amassed in Bernstein's sworn affidavit that Feiner's already collected tens of thousands of dollars from developers with applications pending before the town. Does anyone seriously think Feiner's going to stop this practice?
So, there's plenty of evidence to support Bernstein's sworn statement that Feiner doesn't intend to comply with the new rules.
But the main thing in Bernstein's complaint are all those contributions from the developers. Sure the law required Feiner to make them public, but he never made them public at the time these applications were under consideration, because the law didn't require him to do so.
Had he done so, he surely should have recused himself,and town officials, including the other board members, would have had to look doubly hard at these applications to make sure that in granting them, the town was being scrupulously fair to everyone.
That didn't happen, Feiner profited and the public suffered.
Where is the evidence that Feiner created his own political party?
So Feiner's new defense is going to be that he didn't do any soliciting -- that those tens of thousands of dollars from developers who just happened to have applications pending just happened to land in Feiner's mailbox by coincidence?
If you believe that, maybe you'd like to put a bid down on the Tappan Zee Bridge?
Bernstein says the money was solicited. Let's see if there weren't any Feiner fundraisers like the one he held in March 2004. Maybe those who were involved in those other fundraisers (who aren't members of the Feiner family) will come forward and tell the Ethics Board about those other fundraisers and the well-known White Plains law firm that put them on.
Bernstein also says the sums were so large here it doesn't matter whether they were solicited or just accepted, because state law forbids accepting any money where it looks like it was intended to influence official action.
Let's let the Ethics Board sort this out.
I agree that 16 years is to long for Feiner or anyone else to be in office. Why is thee no term limit here. Even NYC has term limits for Mayor Bloomberg AKA Mayor Money Bags. Supervisor Pot hole must go. His time is up.By the way stll no update on beautify east Harstdale avenue from the Master of emails Paul Feiner on that toopic
Bernstein, I can't believe that you are a lawyer. How stupid can you be. You have incriminated yourself so many times in trying to be a judge and jury.
What's your problem. They have special places for you to get help.
From the first day that you got up at a town hall meeting,i expressed my opinion about you to my husband,who is a physician.He too said that you needed help.
Your hatred has made you a mental case,and without help you will worsen.
As far as the brief on Feiner,he has declared every penny that he received. He did not hide this,but you keep insisting that this was money given under the table.
If I were those developers that you are accusing of this crime I would sue the pants off of you.
I do hope that some citizens get together and take the first step to sue you.
You cannot undo the crime that you committed,so stop trying to cover your own stupidity,by attacking the supervisor in every way that you can.
BERSTEIN YOU LOST BIG TIME. BE CAREFUL THAT THE NEXT STEP WILL BE, THAT YOU WILL BE DISBARRED.
You see Bernstein's specialty.
First he issues a bunch of lies and half-truths which distort the truth.
Second, he and his friends, writing as anonymous, start a campaign of writing and repeating the lies and half-truths.
Third, Bernstein becomes the subject of discussion, which is what that nut-case really wants and desperately needs.
It used to work. It no longer does.
But tnat doesn't help Greenburgh, which has become a snake pit thanks to that intellectually corrupt Bernstein.
Another problem that Bernstein will have is proving that Feiner did something for these developers. More often than not, the Town Board voted 5-0 on the projects that Bernstein cites.
It seems that this brief is accusation without real evidence to back it up. Without question, Bernstein has committed at least two separate acts of perjury. This is very poor work for one of America's Super Lawyers!
I can't wait until Garfunkel and The Shadow get a crack at this affadavit.
You can read the affadavit at the grassroots for greenburgh website, which as mentioned before, is run by Suzane Berger's supporters.
I also believe that Bernstein has opened himself up to a lawsuit by Piekarski and Baker and their attorney for the comments and inneundo in his affadavit.
Bob, you are in over your head here. You have made mistake after mistake. You should seriously consider withdrawing this affadavit. Why should you take the hit for Sheehan? You might get disbarred for everything that you have done and Sheehan will still remain on the Council. Don't be Sheehan's stooge Bob, doing all his dirty work. Be smarter than that.
Dear 5:59 (who I believe is Bernstein in disguise),
A few things before I leave for a meeting.
Feiner believes that the Ethics laws are unenforceable. Although I can't speak with knowledge about whether or not they are enforceable, I can say this:
1) that believing them to be unenforceable does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they won't be complied with although I cannot quarrel with a descision confirmed by trusted and qualified opinions, not to comply with wrongful laws. Especially laws that most people acknowledge were makeshift and only aimed at getting something in place before the Primary.
2) the Ethics laws do suck! They are full of loopholes, misconceptions and do not seriously attempt to punish anyone of elected office. The lack of power of the Ethics Board, the Town Board applying the Ethics recommendation upon itself, the allowing of several entities which do business with the Town but still may contribute to candidate...the new laws are a shoddy product and should be thrown out. Contrary to popular legend, the new laws are not those written by the "volunteers working long hours" that we are led to believe are the 3 members of the Ethics Board (2 were appointed after the final drafts) but the laws of Francis Sheehan and understanding that difference makes my opening comments more understandable.
3) the new laws allow contributions to a Political Party which is what you would expect since Sheehan/Bass-backed Suzanne Berger is running against Feiner and she is the head of the local Democratic Party. Thus it is a safe bet to assume that contributions to Democrats will not be shared with Feiner but end up being spent on behalf of Berger.
Thus, if Feiner formed a party, it would be to alleviate this provision existing solely for Berger's benefit.
4) Sure now we agree that Feiner did not hide the contributions but instead did what he was required to do, list them -- name, address, date and amount -- as all candidates are required to do. Time is fleeing so let me finish by saying that during election years, candidates are required to report these contributions more frequently, how often I don't have time now to look up. Perhaps this will already be posted upon my return later. But even in an off year, I think they have to file at least 3 times. My point for Mr. Bernstein is that you have cited some examples of "favors" to developers in which the favor entailed a lengthy approval process, sometimes lasting 2-3 years. Certainly as you have listed, some of the contributions regarding specific developments were posted during that process, conforming to at least the 3x reporting periods. Thus your point is again non-existant.
It looks like you will be writing up at least 8 pages of amendments to your sworn "verified" complaint. Perhaps later tonight I shall have a few more pages for your re-drafting.
The laws that Bernstein cites in his complaint are laws that restrict what elected officials may do.
Those laws say that elected officials may not solicit nor accept campaign contributions from persons with applications pending before the town.
Developers who gave Feiner money in violation of these laws have not committed any crime unless there was a quid pro quo for the money, in which case they are guilty of bribery.
Bernstein is claiming that Feiner violated the state's ethics laws. He's not claiming that he was bribed. There's a difference.
"All the critics out there who screetch "mismanagement" don't understand the public's need to see and feel a caring government!"
A caring government can certainly be a nice bonus for a municipality, but execution of professional management standards is the highest priority.
Bernstein quotes the following in regard to contributions received by Feiner:
"Such actions also violate Section 805-a of Article 18 of the General Municipal Law which prohibits municipal officers from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting any gift having a value of $75 or more, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be expected to influence him, in the performance of his official duties, or was intended as a reward for official action on his part. Such conduct also
violates Section 570-4(A)(2) of the Town Code, which similarly prohibits town officials from
directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting any money under circumstances in which it could
reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence the town official in the performance
of his official duties."
The problem with this part of Bernsteins affadavit is it is impossible to prove. Feiner is anti-development. He would rather create a park than see property developed. Bernstein will never be able to prove this aspect of his case. There will be far too much ammunition to hit the ethics board with and they won't convict either. Another problem is that Feiner shared much of his money with Juetner and Barnes and back then, they typically voted in unision so the ethics board will have no choice but to go after them as well.
Bob Bernstein has found the law that the four Town Council Members violated when they had their illegal meeting at the Troy Office:
Section 195.00 of the New York Penal Code. A public official is guilty of “official misconduct” when, with intent to obtain a benefit for himself or for
others, he commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his
official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized. Official misconduct is a class A
misdemeanor. The Ethics Board has jurisdiction to consider this matter under Town Code Section 570-2, which incorporates into the Town’s Ethics Code all other state laws relating to conflict of interest and the ethical behavior of municipal officials.
Could the benefit have been for Bob Bernstein himself by getting the property deeded over to him, acting as an individual, rather than representing the Town in any official capacity??????
Bob,
One persons idea of informing the public is another ones idea of personal political gain. You state that Feiner comandeered equipment to publicize the fact that Sheehan and others held an illegal meeting with a developer.
You state:
conduct by Feiner as the town supervisor constitutes “official misconduct” in violation of Section 195.00 of the New York Penal Code because Feiner used his authority as town supervisor to commandeer town equipment and resources for his own personal political benefit. Such conduct also violates Town Code Section 570-6, which prohibits town officials from using town-owned equipment or property for anything other than official town business. In short, Feiner’s behavior constitutes a gross abuse of office.
Feiner can easily swat this one away by saying that an affadavit filed by someone against the Town is in fact public information and he had every right to share it with the public.
feiner's silence in the face of bernstein's powerful and fact filled affidavit can only mean one thing - guilty on all counts.
Feiner's violations of state law and the Ethics Code do not turn on whether or not he is "anti-development." They turn on whether his accepting tens of thousands of dollars from specific developers with specific applications pending before the town constitutes accepting money that was intended to influence the exercise of this official duties.
The amounts of money here are so "staggering" to use Bernstein's words that one can easily see how this would be a violation of the law.
Feiner and his supporters also need to read the complaint more carefully. Bernstein's isn't charging Feiner with official misconduct for making the Troy affidavit public; he's charging Feiner with official misconduct for using the town e-mails and website to attack private individuals for personal political gain. If the individuals attacked have equal access to the town's e-mail and website system, so they may respond, there's no problem. But if they don't have access, and they obviously do not, then Feiner may have a serious legal problem on his hands -- and not just with the Town's Ethics Board.
9:03
You state:
"whether his accepting tens of thousands of dollars from specific developers with specific applications pending before the town constitutes accepting money that was intended to influence the exercise of this official duties."
Here is your problem: PROVE IT! How can you possibly prove that Feiner was influenced, especially given the fact that the other Board Members voted the same way.
You go on to state that:
"he's charging Feiner with official misconduct for using the town e-mails and website to attack private individuals for personal political gain."
Here is your problem:
Bernstein and McNally are public figures. They are not considered private citizens. There is much case law to back this up.
Come on Guilty, Guilty, Guilty...try harder sport. Don't you realize you are representing the CABAL? You need to be better than that!
Did Bob Bernstein ever attend a fundraiser for Richard Brodsky? Doesn't Brodsky accept contributions from those who appear before his Assembly committee? Will Bernstein file a complaint against Brodsky before the NYS Ethics Board?
Within this new affidavit by the legendary Bernie the Attorney, aka King Zog II, the uncrowned king of Edgemontania, or may it now be referred to as Egomania, he seeks the crowning achievement of his storied career. Not unlike Captain Queeq and the story of the missing key to the food locker that held the strawberries, Zog II is now looking for the key to the new Town Hall.
Queeq was obsessed, as we all now know, but Zog II is also obsessed! He must destroy the pretender who made the spare key to the Town Hall. He believes that sometime, sixteen years ago, the current Supervisor snuck into Tony Veteran's office, and while the old army airborne officer wasn't looking, he poured a mysterious sleeping potion in his hot chocolate. Then and there, while Tony was draming of visions of Gilda, and "Who put the blame on Mame," young Paul Feiner reached into Tony's vest pocket, found the key and pressed it into a handy bar of soap. Before the cocoa induced stupor wore off, the young Feiner was back on his "problem solver" Schwinn and he was off to Goldberg's Hardware in Tarrytown. There he had a new "golden key" made from his impression in Tony's bar of Lava.
This was not unlike finding the "golden fleece," or the "silver chalice" or the lost giant contact lens of Cyclops!
So the young wizard prayed to the "golden key" and, lo and behold, he was elected and was able to open the door to the Castle on Knollwood Avenue.
Meanwhile the years passed by, and from banks of the Cayuga, to the serpentine wall built by Jefferson, the young man, who would become the uncrowned king of Egomania, drifted to the land of the Hun! Here at 19 Schillerstrasse strange thoughts started to seep into the young royal's mind. Surrounded by the Main River in Frankfurt, he had a teutonic vision of another river, a mighty one, which divided Westchester County. In a dream it came to him to settle by the banks of the Bronx River and establish his place in the sun. It was then and there, that he devoted himself, and his little round body and soul, to the search for the "golden key," aka, Veteran's key to Town Hall.
But of course young Paul was not really ready to relinquish the key so easily. The uncrowned Zog II was quite crafty and he ordained the bleached Princess Whopper with Cheese Berger as his consort. Together they make an arresting couple. Both are legal hot shots, both are ambitious for regal rule, and Zog II is willing to do anything to get the "golden key" into anyone's hands, and out of the boy Supervisor's. He has promised, one way or another, to never step back into the hallowed halls of the Town Headquarters, and therefore never to enter this promised land, as long as the Princess wins, and allows Egomania/Edgemontania to be free and independent of Greenburgh. There by the pond, amongst all of his Civic Association worshippers, he will be finally crowned.
Will this magic day commeth? It is said by the seers that on this day in the middle of September, he will never step in Town Hall again. It is ordained to happen, one way or another, on the evening of the 18th of September!
The Grandson of the Shadow predicts that the "golden key" will remain tightly clenched in the hand of the current Supervisor. Part of his evil court will be gone. It will be replaced by new, and brighter faces. The Princess will go back to Babylon on the Hudson, her dream of empire shattered.
But what of Zog II? He will fade away, but he will be dogged by legal problems that will lead to his potential disbaring, disgrace. and possible incarceration.
Though the crystal ball is getting clouded. I see a vision of a ball field in Allenwood, the country club for fallen legal beagles. Zog II meets up with his old buddy Chase, and the ensuing confrontation is not pretty. Zog II is about to meet Chase's friend Bubba... and the picture fades!
More to follow in this ongoing saga!
Son and Grandson of the Shadow... "Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow does!"
Back from the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations Meeting and what a laugh riot that was but that will be discussed when I write about how the upcoming "Debate" sponsored by them will be conducted.
If you don't care to know about that then ignore my comments (coming over the weekend) and just know that there are going to be free refreshments served.
Got out my trusty New York State Board of Elections, Handbook of Instructions for Campaign Financial Disclosure.
page 6, When Are Reports Filed?
"A. PERIODIC REPORTS - These reports are filed on January 15 and July 15 each year.
B. ELECTION REPORTS - There are three election reports filed in connection with each Primary, General or Special Election. These are due at the following times:
32 Day Pre-Election
11 Day Pre-Election
10 Day Post Election for Primary elections or 27 Day Post Election for General or Special Elections.
All reports have a specific filing date and cover a specific period. The period covered is always the day after the cut-off date from the previous report to the cut-off date for the current report. The cut-off date is always 4 days before the filing date.
and so on...."
The point being that despite Bernstein's sworn affidavit, Feiner did disclose his contributions and that the chances that these contributions missed a proper reporting period in the at least 2 year period that it takes to get zoning changes "rammed" through (Planning Department, Planning Board, Zoning Board, Town Board vote, Public Hearings, lack of quorum, requests for more information etc.), then anyone who read these filings would be aware of the money and who made the contribution. Thus Mr. Bernstein, an avid reader of these filings, would, to the best of his knowledge, be aware of the untruthfulness in his sworn "verified complaint" when he wrote:
page 2 "There was never any public disclosure made to the Edgemont Community -- nor to anyone else for that matter -- that any money had changed hands..."
page 3 "Beginning in 2002, after receiving the $10,000 from Caro, and thousands more from others -- but without publicly disclosing that he had received any money from anyone -- ..."
page 7 in the section entitled STATEMENT OF FACTS
#11. During the two-year period while their controversial applications to build Stone Ridge Manor were pending, Feiner accepted campaign contributions of nearly $10,000 from...the contributions were paid as follows...At no time prior to the vote did Feiner publicly disclose to the Edgemont community or to anyone else for that matter, the fact that he had received $5,250 from the developers. It is not known whether he disclosed that fact to the other town board members, all of whom voted with Feiner to support the zoning law change."
page 7 FOOTNOTES
1 Public records showing...
2 Public records showing...
page 8, #14
"He (Feiner) has also never publicly disclosed or acknowledged the tens of thousands of dollars he has been receiving from developers with applications before the Town. For example..."
page 8 FOOTNOTES
3 Public records showing...
4 Public records showing...
page 9 FOOTNOTES
5 Public records showing...
page 11 "After receiving the contributions, Feiner tried to act as a mediator between the developer and area residents -- but never disclosed to the residents that D'Alessio had given him money"
page 14, #18 "At no time did Feiner ever disclose the thousands of dollars he had received from persons apparently interested in how the money would be spent".
page 18, #30 Complainant (Bernstein) repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein."
All of Bernstein's citations of campaign contributions come from the Feiner campaign contribution logs. These are public documents even available online. Thus, when Mr. Bernstein repeats and repeats and repeats that Feiner never publicly disclosed and swears to this in his complaint, who is lying?
Now let's look at another "crime" that Bernstein would have you believe has transpired.
Page 13, #17 "In order to avoid exceeding limitations on how much may be given each year by an individual, Caro contributed in his own name, his wife's name and in the name of a paralegal in his law office".
If it was done to avoid limitations, then why not also say "mission successful".
What Bernstein does at one end is that the contributions were made by Caro, his wife, the paralegal but then on the other end, Bernstein says Caro contributed in their names. Small point, Bernstein knows what he is saying, he can't find anything is wrong so he plants the seed that something is wrong. Ok, you say that I know that it is really Caro giving the money...but if you believe that then you should also look at the individual contributions made to Suzanne Berger for the same amount money or more but made by different names at the law firm where she works. These two situations are really the same.
But to all of you to whom Bernstein is an up and up "hero", consider how your hero deals with the innocent until proven doctrine, a cornerstone of individual rights and freedom.
Page 18, #32, continuing onto page 19 "Complainant respectfully requests that the Ethics Board undertake to determine whether there were any quid pro quos discussed or agreed to in exchange for Caro's unusually large $10,000 gift, and whether Caro or entities controlled by Caro received, directly or indirectly from the Valhalla School District, or from the Town itself, any of the Town's WESTHELP revenues. Alternatively, if the Ethics Board cannot get answers to these questions, complainant respectfully requests that it refer the matter for investigation by the Westchester County District Attorney".
There are lawyers on the Ethics Board and they will see through this and laugh at another of Bob's famous superlawyer jokes. If there is no basis, if there is no "habeus corpus" or indication of money going to Caro, there will be no answers. If there are no answers, then the Ethics Board should do what Bernstein is afraid to do for fear of being publicly scolded by the District Attorney, that there is no basis for investigation. It is just Bob playing the "have you stopped beating your wife card" again.
But it is more than tsk tsk. Hold out your hand Bob. Thwack!
This whole document is not really a serious application to the Ethics Board; it is a Press Release for lay people to read and believe.
I'm not Feiner, I'm not a lawyer so I am not taking the position that I know the facts, know the ramifications of what "soliciting a contribution" means in the context of law -- not even the "law" as passed by the Town Board which Feiner was trapped into voting for. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
What I can go on is by what is apparent to me and I have written above: that when Bob trips over the little details where there is little-to-none cover (and he does this because of his ego that he can get away with anything) that there are likely more such missteps but they are more cleverly hidden. I can read and I can recognize both "half full" and "half empty" when I see it; more importantly I can tell too when the glass is empty. I may not be able to make a lawyer's points but I have a pretty good idea when the notes don't sound right in the symphony.
With more time I am confident I can get up to speed.
Perhaps an example of this is the famous (Bob likes the word "controversial" but he likes to use this for Edgemont issues and far be it from me to steal his favorite emphasis) draft agreement for the Dromore property.
When I know that Bob is signing and not, or for, the Town, when I know that the agreement is Bernstein penned to be held "secret" and therefore not conveyed to the Town and when I know that Bob has not been retained by either the Town or authorized by the ECC or Greenville to acquire the property, then everything else, any of the legalese really doesn't matter.
Even though I have similarly fast-tracked my conclusion on Bernstein's "complaint", I expect that with time and research (reading the entire cited laws, not just Bob's conclusion or excerpt) will likely lead me in an entirely different direction.
Wags, ok those not supporting Berger, have suggested that Bernstein creates more laws than the NYS legislature.
That is at least a FUNNY joke.
And hold that laugh for when we really tear into that "chance non- Town Board meeting" in Harrison on Saturdays in February. My first reaction was that it sounded just as likely as, as Caro making contributions through his wife and paralegal.
That's a treat for those who believe in the what goes up theory.
Good night Moon.
Well the campaign smoking gun has finally been revealed. The process began with the Board’s attack on the old Ethics Board and the Star Chamber event a little over a year ago. This is what I reported on then!
The Kangaroo Court and the Cabal
By
Richard J. Garfunkel
July 5, 2006
Last night a privileged few of had the dubious pleasure of attending the latest chapter of the Greenburgh Town Board’s ongoing Star Chamber event. For all of you that have heard the term but do not know its derivation, a Star Chamber was a royal court that began in England in the Middle Ages; cases were heard there without juries. Usually it was known for their tyrannical judgments. The name came from the stars that were painted on the ceiling of the Court.
Of course this most recent addition of the Board’s and the CABAL’s latest witch-hunt put Judge Thomas Facelle on the Board’s hot seat last night. Judge Facelle, a man with impeccable credentials, 50+ years as a lawyer and a judge, 23 years in the Westchester County’s District Attorney’s office and a retired Brigadier General in the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s law division, has been the Chairperson of the Greenburgh Ethic’s Board for twelve years.
Of course Judge Facelle was dragged in front of this rump session of the Town Board as a way of embarrassing him and the Supervisor. While the Supervisor was away this session was scheduled and the CABAL (the group of Feiner haters) had plans to turn this into one of their three ring circuses. But unfortunately for them, things turned out differently. Judge Facelle systematically reviewed the history of this so-called cover up regarding these unsubstantiated ethics violation by the Supervisor. It seems that Supervisor Feiner asked the Ethics Board to review a campaign contribution made to him. But, at the same time, Ed Kraus, and others decided to file charges against the Supervisor with the District Attorney’s office. Judge Facelle addressed this issue brilliantly. Because charges with the DA were filed against the Supervisor, he (Facelle) and his Board prudently decided to await the decision of the DA’s office. Of course the DA’s office not only quashed and dismissed these spurious charges and claims, but in their own inefficient way never advised or notified Supervisor Feiner, Judge Facelle or the Supervisor’s attackers. Therefore this specious case and its dismissal, promulgated by Bob Bernstein, Ed Krauss and other groups, had been in limbo since November of 2004. When Judge Facelle finally heard of the dismissal, in the past few days, he now was at liberty to consult the other members of the Ethics Board about reviewing these charges. Judge Facelle handled himself brilliantly under a withering but futile attack by Councilperson Bass who attempted to charge him with prejudging the case. Judge Facelle answered all of the questions posed to him by Councilpersons Bass and Sheehan who seemed astonished by the strength, authority and legitimacy of Judge Facelle’s position. Judge Facelle then presented to the Board a package that reflected the timeline of this so-called case and the relevant documentation that supported his testimony.
Of course many of the same characters that hate the Supervisor were there. These are the same people who wish to constantly wish subvert the will of the electorate by smear, innuendo and baseless charges.
After the Judge’s bravura performance in front of the Board, Mr. Ed Kraus demanded that he be allowed to speak several times. But the Supervisor asked the Board their opinion on this matter. Supervisor Feiner stated that if one person wished to talk all should have that right. Of course, Judge Facelle already had stated that he and his Board would entertain the charges of the complainants, assuming they had merit, allow them to attend their hearing, when it was held, and only allow relevant and pertinent evidence to be submitted, not political hyperbole and diatribes.
Councilperson Barnes wisely agreed with the position of closing the hearings to other interested parties and Bass and Sheehan grudgingly had to go along with Supervisor Feiner, Councilperson Juettner and Barnes.
Since Councilperson Bass wants the Ethics Board to look into Supervisor Feiner’s campaign contributions, I think that the Ethics Board should look into his. Council Bass publicly opposed renting space at the Town Board to the Westchester Federal credit Union or to any other organization. He received a contribution from the Credit Union, did not recuse himself and changed his mind.—voting to rent space at this location. Why did Bass change his mind? Was he influenced by the contribution? Shouldn’t he request the Ethics Board to review his action? Councilperson Bass also accepted contributions from those who actively the proposed legislation to tighten our tree code. The tree legislation that has been recommended by the Conservation Advisory Commission has gone nowhere. Did these contributions influence Councilperson Bass’s decision to delay a vote on this important issue?
Over the last number of years this CABAL of haters, have been attacking Supervisor with all sorts of charges. Many of these people have created a career of such actions. I say to them “get a life!” I have known the Supervisor for 35 years or so. I therefore volunteered a few years ago to help Supervisor Feiner set the record straight. Supervisor Feiner does not have a political organization, he does not have a patronage system, but he does have friends in this community that respect his hard work, dedication and honesty and excellent grasp of public policy. Supervisor Feiner has been in the public sector for over 25 years as an elected official and has been an activist for way over 35 years. His public record is second to none. His accomplishments are well known and respected, his honesty and commitment to people is legendary, but his small core of haters is relentless. I ask his supporters to rise up and to show their support for him and their indignation at his vicious opponents.
Now we are getting up to date!
Of course, a year later, the Board got rid of the Judge, put in its own Ethic’s Board, wrote the current Ethic’s Code, which is specifically geared to this election, and now we have the attack by Bernstein! This is their strategy, innuendo, lie, half-truth and repetition. This is the tactic, pound away, create enough smoke and mirrors, and convince enough people that there is something wrong!
Richard J. Garfunkel
Do Feiner and sidekick Samis really think that complying with the campaign finance disclosure laws excuses Feiner's having received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers with applications pending before the town?
Town board decision-making is supposed to be taint-free. Elected officials are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. No one knew that these huge sums of money had changed hands when these applications were pending because Feiner kept that information to himself.
Feiner, Samis and Garfunkel think there's nothing wrong with what Feiner did. So what if he took tens of thousands of dollars from developers with applications pending? So what if he took another $10,000 from Caro, a convicted felon? So what if Feiner illegally hired Caro to be his WestHELP lawyer? So what if Feiner misused the town's e-mail system for personal political benefit?
In Feiner's world, and in the world of his delusional defenders, and as Samis said himself, the ends always justify the means.
To the 8:47 CABALIST, READ THE FOLLOWING!
More public opinion about Supervisor Feiner and the dysfunctional Greenburgh Town Board.
What does this Board really stand for anyway? It fights Feiner's initiatives tooth and claw, 24/7. Eventually when the public expresses its opinions it slithers along with him.
Just remember, September 18th is just around the corner. Let's get a large turnout, and rid ourselves of the three Bees -Berger, Barnes, and Bass! It is up to you the voter, it is in your hands!
Letters in today's paper!
Paul Feiner is on the right side
I'm voting for Paul J. Feiner for town supervisor of Greenburgh.
I've always voted for Paul Feiner, but got to know him really well last year. Verizon was offering fiber optic service in Greenburgh, and needed Town Board approval to offer television service through the fiber optics. Unsurprisingly, Cablevision opposed Verizon's request.
Feiner, with a mostly balky Town Board baying at his every point, stood up and courageously argued for freedom of choice in television providers in Greenburgh. I was in favor of giving Greenburgh residents a real option in television, but it was Paul Feiner's determination that got this to happen.
And he has been that way on every important local issue. Do you like being woken up all too early on weekend mornings by someone blowing leaves or mowing the lawn at decibel levels that could split your eardrums? Feiner doesn't like that either, and he's doing what he can to keep the noise down. He stays on top of utilities like Con Ed to make repairs today, not tomorrow, after storms. He's advocating wi-fi for a major street in Hartsdale - he wants it for the whole town, every inch of it, and the Hartsdale street would be the start. Feiner is on the right side of every issue, be it nature or high-tech communication to the world-at-large from your laptop or just dozing on your porch on a Saturday morning.
So I'm happily voting for Paul J. Feiner for another term for town supervisor.
Paul Levinson
White Plains
Board members not serving the town
It has come to light the last several weeks in this newspaper that the Greenburgh Town Board members are not up to the task of managing the town and supporting the whole community. They seem to have their own agendas, which are not disclosed to everyone and the town is suffering.
They don't support the town supervisor in helping mak this a better town with open government and equal opportunity for all communities to share. Certain board members think they are the elite and only deal with people in the Edgemont section of the town who feel the same.
The board members running in the September primary, with the exception of Paul Feiner, should not be re-elected. The new candidates, who care and will make a difference, should be given a chance. Let's hope the voters of the town are looking for change come September and November.
Gary Nadel
Greenburgh
Dear Guilty, Guilty, Guilty,
Come on now sport. I told you to do better and this is the best you come up with?
"Do Feiner and sidekick Samis really think that complying with the campaign finance disclosure laws excuses Feiner's having received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers with applications pending before the town?"
Your problem here is that Bernstein stated that FEINER DID NOT DISCLOSE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC.
As Mr. Samis has pointed out, Bernstein got the names and dates fom Feiner's own campaign statements.
Hopefully your next post will be a bit more challenging.
Has anyone seen Francis Sheehan or is he still trying to avoid the ramifications of being subpeopned by the Troy Attorney?????
Feiner never disclosed to the public at the time developers' applications were pending before the town that Feiner received tens of thousands of dollars from them and their lawyers and their consultants. That taints the town's decision-making pretty badly and what's what makes Feiner's behavior so disturbing and in violation of the town's ethics code.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true, no matter how often you repeat them.
Feiner reported contributions just like everobody else did, several times each year according to law. Aplications are decided over a period of time, which included multiple reporting cycles. This doesn't fit the smear in the Bernstein affidavit, and the Bernstein bunch doesn't want to admit it.
Hopefully on September 18 we will get rid of the Bernstein influence by defeating Berger, Barnes and Bass.
Much like the fabled SS Titanic, Super Lawyer Bob has hit an Iceburgh. His affadavit has now been ripped open from stem to stern. It will be amusing to watch the rats jump ship before Bernstein sinks alltogether. I bet Sheehan will be the first to jump.
au contraire.
feiner's jaw has been frozen by the revelations showing chapter and verse that feiner acts as an undisclosed private lobbyist for developers.
applications are made, money is given to feiner .... feiner fails to tell anyone he was a recipient and soon thereafter.... applications are granted
coincidence.... impossible.
more like unethical or perhaps worse
Small time is as small time does.
The truly tragic thing here is that Feiner could be bought so cheaply. His inability to think through his actions makes him his own worst enemy. For example, he accepts $10,000 for assisting the Baker/Piekarski group to get a zoning change at Stone Ridge Manor - and the developers' property just sold for $30 million. Look at Dromore Road - the Troy's may have paid as much as $1.4 million - but after the zoning map "error" was discovered, the property is suddenly (!) worth more than $10 million. The going rate for performing such feats of magic whilst clutching the golden key to one's fevered breast should be at least 1%. (For the math-challenged among you, that would make the Dromore "error" correction worth about $100,000.)
One would have hoped that the Supervisor's visions of personal greatness would have resulted in truly colossal corruption - graft on a scaled to dwarf Tammany Hall. Instead, we get merely a feiner scandal, not the best money can buy.
12:50 and 1:08,
Time to move on.
"Feiner fails to tell anyone he was a recipient..." Will you still be saying that even after Bernstein amends his complaint?
Are you sure the property sold for $30 million, cross your heart and hope to die? But what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that residents should vote for Berger because she would be on the take for a payoff that would better reflect the value of the property. How much should she ask for, $300,000? How much should the members of the Planning and Zoning and Town Boards have gotten?
But I just don't get it. You are disappointed that even when malicious lies are being posted, you are unhappy that the liars haven't made up stories acccusing Feiner of receiving a larger payoff?
Still if you can't articulate what is apparently bugging you, let me give you this phrase for a Berger bumper sticker:
Vote Berger: She Makes Graft Worthwhile.
Typical of the lying that Berbstein's frantic supporters tell, Greenburgh Historian is implying that Feiner got a contribution from Troy and that is why Feiner blew the whistle. Even Bernstein, the liar-in chief (or should I say Super Liar) hasn't made that claim. Because Feiner never received a contribution from Troy and he never was on Troy's side.
If that is his view of being a historian I think he should change professions.
To anon 8:57 AM: I agree with you on Verizon to give competition to Cablevision was great but if the town had passsed it the first time Feiner wanted it to pass we would not of had such a great deal. I believe people on the Town Board took the communities best interest at hand and wanted to look at the proposal and compare it to what Long Island got.Mr Feiner has some intereating ideas but jumps in to fast. As for leaf blowers / lawn mowers my friend who lives by Dobbs Ferry Road still get's awakened by many of these noises on plenty of Saturday mornings. WiFI East Hartsdale Avenue has had many Cons that were posted on this July's blog site and as Usual no follow up from Mr. Feiner's original post or email.
anon at 2:11 is living in fantasyland.
Feiner sided with the Troys in their legal proceeding against the town by announcing on the town's website that the town map shows the Dromore property to be zoned multifamily.
In fact, the property has never been zoned multifamily, Feiner knew it had never been zoned multifamily, Feiner knew that an error in the map once showed otherwise, and Feiner also knew that the error had been corrected six months before he announced the opposite was so on the town's website.
Feiner also sided with the Troys in their legal proceeding against the town by posting the Troys' affidavit on the town's website, without posting any of the submissions on the issue by the town's own staff.
In addition, Feiner sided with the Troys by accepting as true the Troys' allegation that the moratorium on construction which had been proposed for Central Avenue had been aimed at stopping construction by the Troys.
In fact, Feiner himself was the first to announce his support for the moratorium when it was first proposed last September -- long before anyone ever heard of the the Troys.
In the meantime, Feiner's done nothing to raise any money to buy the Troys' property to preserve it as open space. And he won't either because he'd have to charge the villages for their fair share of the cost, which he's vowed never to do.
So, did the Troys make Feiner a contribution? Whether it took the form of money or just legally irrelevant politically-inspired phony allegations in an affidavit, it sure as hell looks like they did.
And what's the payback? If Feiner and his "team" are elected, they'll just compromise the Troys' claim and give the Troys the zoning change they want -- just like Feiner & Co. did for Stone Ridge Manor.
2:39 seems to be either Bernstein or Mr. Sheehan AKA "The Running Man."
You state:
"Feiner sided with the Troys in their legal proceeding against the town by announcing on the town's website that the town map shows the Dromore property to be zoned multifamily."
This is precisely what the Town Map DID show when the application was put forth by Troy. This was of course prior to the illegal alteration ordered by Sheehan.
You go on to further state:
"In addition, Feiner sided with the Troys by accepting as true the Troys' allegation that the moratorium on construction which had been proposed for Central Avenue had been aimed at stopping construction by the Troys."
EVERYONE knows that this is true. What other similarly zoned property was so far along in the approval process?
Then you state:
"In the meantime, Feiner's done nothing to raise any money to buy the Troys' property to preserve it as open space. And he won't either because he'd have to charge the villages for their fair share of the cost, which he's vowed never to do."
Not even Super Lawyer Bob would tell a client of his to waste the time to secure funding for the purchase of property that might be tied up in litigation for several years to come.
Here is how Sheehan's Board of Ethics works;
These are items from their upcoming meeting on August 29th:
7. Substantive discussion of Opinion/Report relating to March 04 Fundraiser for benefit of Town Supervisor
8. Procedural discussion of whether to undertake Report on Westchester Federal Credit Union contribution to Councilman Bass
Why is Feiners issue SUBSTANTIVE and Bass's PROCEDURAL? Could it be that Sheehan has ORDERED A DECISION on Feiner BEFORE THE PRIMARY? Feiner's issue was clearly put on the fast track while Bass's was not. Sheehan justice at its best!
I bet Young Kaminer has already written the story for immediate release. Yes, the same Young Kaminer that moonlights as an abuser of women's 1st amendment rights.
Good work, Mr. Bob or Francis at 2:49 for skewing the dishonest blog og the guy at 2:39. But there is another example of his dishonesty when he says that Feiner sided with the developer in their legal proceeding against the town by announcing on the town's website that the town map shows the Dromore property to be zoned multifamily. Aside from the fact that the Town map did show just that, Feiner's email said this"
"The Town’s zoning map shows this property to be in a CA-1 zone, which permits prescribed multi-family development Without getting to the merits of the zoning issue, the affidavit, which everyone should read, reveals extraordinary secrecy, favoritism, avoidance of proper procedures, and violations of law by the Town Council. It also shows the power given by the Town Council members to Bob Bernstein and Michelle McNally to harm the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh in their secret dealings with the Town Council, and with Steve Bass and Francis Sheehan in particular."
So what did Feiner say? he did not say that he agreed with the Town map. He didn't get into that at all, because his purpose was to reveal the illegal, unethical, crooked and secret dealings with Bass and Sheehan and Bernstein and McNally.
If Bernstein were seen murdering a child, his friends would find a way to excuse him and accuse Feiner of the murder.
"a real option in television, but it was Paul Feiner's determination that got this to happen"
But when is it going to happen? I've called Verizon a few times over the past year, but they state that they do not offer television service for my neighborhood.
The Ethics Board needs to be fair and impartial. Please don't become a tool of Bernstein!
Dear 4:34
You should contact VERIZON to determine if FIOS is available in your neighborhood. If so, consider getting it as it will increase your cable channel availability and improve on picture quality.
"WiFI East Hartsdale Avenue has had many Cons that were posted on this July's blog site and as Usual no follow up from Mr. Feiner's original post or email."
Yea, what did happen to that idea? Personally I didn't like the idea, but am curious as to what was finally decided by the Town.
And did the Town hire someone to fix the East Hartsdale drainage situation? If so, how's the progress? I remember that that was a big deal, but there's been no update.
Have new zoning board members volunteered?
What did the Town and Greenburgh Central finally decide about the Woodlands fitness center?
How are the around-the-clock contract negotiations going for the Donald Park and East Irvington fire protection districts?
Where's the location for the new pre-school playground?
What was the outcome of that great meeting with Toby Ritter, or is it still confidential?
Any decision on leaf blowers?
Now that the ConEd tree law has been passed and ConEd has decided not to trim/cut any trees in Greenburgh except in case of emergency, has the Town taken on the preventative maintenance responsibility?
What was the final decision regarding shade at the swimming pool?
These are just a few of the blog topics over the past 1-2 months that I'm curious about how they've proceded post-blog.
The Ethics Board is obviously a tool for Sheehan/Bernstein. Bernstein probably wrote the rules and Sheehan pushed them through. Why do you think Sheehan was so eager to pass the new Ethics Laws? This was all planned out months ago.
We'll see how the EB does with Krauss's (remember him, Francis Sheehan's CAMPAIGN MANAGER from Edgemont?) complaint from three years ago.
The problem that Sheehan has with the new Bernstein affadavit is it was so poorly written by Super Lawyer Bob. It has already been shredded to pieces on this blog and Bernstein has left himself wide open to be sued by several of the parties he names in it.
To anon 4:34 PM:
Since the Master of All email and blog site AKA Mr. Feiner answers all questions posted on his blog site I will try to help you out the best i can in his absence.
1. Go to verizon.com click on Fios put in your phone # and it will tell you if Fios is available in your area(Make sure all 3 TV, internet, and phone not just 2 of them are available.
2.The cost of about $95.00 per month comes out to about $132.00 after taxes fees for extended basic. This means no movie premium channels HBO Show time.by the way while on Verizon .com check out the channel line up and see if it is what you want.There is no News 12 as they're owned by cablevision.
3. Allow 6 - 8 hours for installation.I put it in and quite happy.
4. Hope this is helps and Maybe supervisor Feiner will Answer your email but don't hold your breath waiting.
Bob Bernstein filed the complaint against Feiner to divert attention from Sheehan, Bass and his highly improper meeting with a developer. Feiner wanted a park. Bernstein wanted a village hall for Edgemont--more traffic, more congestion. Would there be a holding jail cell in an Edgemont Village Hall?
What's worst: Bernstein never told anyone of his plans to turn a park into a village hall.
Bernstein also asked the developer to deed the property to guess who? Bernstein?
The property deal would have been good for Bob, bad for Edgemont.
Feiner and his friends are fooling themselves if they think the Bernstein complaint isn't going anywhere.
Never before has anyone shown, as Bernstein has, that Feiner has taken tens of thousands of dollars from specific developers who had specific applications pending before the town. Feiner doesn't deny doing this; nor could he. The records speak for themselves.
Likewise, Feiner does not deny taking $10,000 from convicted felon and Mayfair Knollwood lawyer Chase Caro. Nor does Feiner deny unilaterally hiring Caro to defend the sweetheart deal Feiner gave to the Valhalla schools -- one day after Caro bounced a check to one of his elderly clients for $310,000!!
And unless Bernstein and McNally have free access to the town's e-mail and website to rebut Feiner's attacks, and they don't, it sure looks like Feiner abused his office when he used the town's taxpayer-paid e-mail and website to attack them.
And just because Feiner and his supporters happen to think the Troys are right and the Town is wrong, that doesn't give Feiner the right to use taxpayer funded media to side publicly with the developer in legal proceedings against the Town. That's both unethical and an incredibly irresponsible thing for an elected official to do.
Feiner and supporters like Samis and Siegel continue to lie when they keep saying Bernstein wanted the Dromore property for a village hall. The draft that Bernstein prepared shows that the property was to be deeded only to the town.
But even if Bernstein had wanted the property for a village hall, at least any attempt to do that would still be subject to a vote by the people of Edgemont who'd have the right to say no.
Contrast that with the tens of thousands of dollars that Feiner took under the table from developers with applications pending. None of the residents affected by Feiner's votes on such matters had the right to vote. In fact, they didn't even know Feiner got any cash under the table because Feiner never disclosed it when the votes were taken.
Three years ago, Feiner and sidekick Siegel tried to mediate a dispute between developer D'Allesio and Edgemont residents over the cutting of trees. Both Feiner and Siegel knew that Feiner pocketed $1,000 from D'Allesio, but they kept that information from the Edgemont residents. They found out about it long after the damage D'Allesio was allowed to get away with in Edgemont had been done.
Now we know this is how Feiner does business. He is as corrupt as the day is long.
"You should contact VERIZON to determine if FIOS is available ..."
I've called a number of times over the past year, including two weeks ago, but only telephone service and internet service are available; no cable television service and no projected date for when it might be available. So I'm still stuck with Cablevision as my only option, which isn't bad, bit I liked the idea of having a choice.
Caro,here Caro there,enough is enough,Bernstein. You put yourself in a worse position than Caro.
There's no one to defend the crime that you were trying to commit against the residents in your area. You call yourself a lawyer,please at this time you are worse than Caro. He raped a few with what he did,but you were trying to rape the whole Edgemont community.
Soon it will be your turn to face the music.
To anon 4:34 PM
Since Mr. Pothole repair AKA Mr. Feiner has replied to you in his usual fast way i thought i would tell you that i know verizon is available in some if not all buildings on East Hartsdale Avenue. It's slao available in the Dobbs ferry Road area. Hope this is helpful to you as well as my comments at 4:58PM
To Data not drama excellent points all of them. Thanks for bringing them up. Mr. Feiner needs these constant reminders to update us on all his ideas and thoughts.
Dear 6:12
Well sport, I give you an "A" for effort. Too bad you have such bad material to work with.
You State:
"Never before has anyone shown, as Bernstein has, that Feiner has taken tens of thousands of dollars from specific developers who had specific applications pending before the town. Feiner doesn't deny doing this; nor could he. The records speak for themselves."
Well sport, how do you feel about Suzanne Berger getting more than $10,000 from her fellow lawyers at her law firm? Her firm received a no bid contract courtesy of Francis Sheehan that is worth upwards of a million dollars.
As far as the rest of your post, I have already wrecked your arguments (see past comments above). The Bernstein affadavit has been rendered a non-issue. Move on to something else sport and we'll spar again.
7:25 Check with the management of the building. Could be that they do not want Verizon,to service the tenants. You say that some buildings have Verizon on the avenue,that means the cables are on the poles,ready for hookups. Again I say check with your management company.If you have your phone service with verizon, I suggest you call the business office [the number is on the phone bill]and I'm quite sure that they will give you the answer that you are looking for.
Dear 6:23
Wasn't it Bass who CHANGED his vote on tree legislation immediately upon receiving a fat $500 check from Michelle McNally? Talk about corruption!
The only thing that the Verizon business office says is that cable tv service is not available, and there is no date known as to if it will be available.
Maybe someone in town management could have a talk with whomever the arrangement was made at Verizon. It's been a year now, and I think an update to the town is in order.
Did Bernstein file an ethics charge against Bass for changing his mind on the tree law after receiving a contribution from mcnally?
Bass is the poster boy for pay to play politics.
He was against leasing space at town hall to the credit union until he received a contribution.
He was for the tree law until McNally gave him a contribution.
Bass has picked up small and medium sized contributions from people on all sides of the tree law, including from members of the Conservation Advisory Committee that proposed it.
Bass never changed his mind on the need to reform the town's tree code. Unlike Feiner, though, he's been working with members of the community to try to achieve a consensus on what it should say.
The original version that Feiner supported would have required every homeowner in unincorporated Greenburgh to get a permit to remove any tree on their property having a diameter of 6 inches or more (for one tree) and 3 inches of more (for more than one tree).
A lot of us who were in favor of reforming the tree code thought that was excessive and unnecessary regulation. We wanted to see the town focus its effort on safety and protecting the environment by requiring licensed professionals to do the job and by requiring that the town regulate only where there's a risk that tree removal might cause flooding and erosion.
So Bass, who is the town board's liaison to the Conservation Advisory Committee, has been trying for months to work out a compromise.
But where was Feiner in all this? He's been nowhere, man. Not only has he been of no help, but he undermines our work by telling supporters it's all about the contributions Bass got.
Well I got news for him. You can't compare the few hundred dollars Bass may have gotten from people on all sides of the tree law, with the tens of thousands of dollars that Feiner got from developers with applications pending before the town.
Bass, to his credit, is raising money from the people. Feiner is just plain corrupt.
Every time I see the phrase "the tens of thousands of dollars that Feiner got from developers with applications pending before the town" I knoe that current talking point comes from the Bernstein clique (I would use cabal but that word has been appropriated by someone).
Bernstein, can't you vary your so-called prose?
To 9:12,
I'm sure you are familiar with the concept: there is no half-pregnant.
Because that is apparently what you would have us believe when you defend Mr. Bass' acceptance of contributions. Apparently your concerns about the appearance of propriety only start just over the level of Bass' highest contribution.
But Mr. Bass is on the Edgemont "ok to vote for" list so his "indiscretions" don't matter.
And he also gets points because he is "trying" to get tree laws and he is "trying" to get sidewalk laws.
Remember EST in the 60's?
"Try and lift that chair"
Either you can or you can't.
However, Mr. Bass is indeed trying.
Trying only to get votes.
There is a huge difference between what Bass has done in accepting campaign contributions and what Feiner has done.
Bass has accepted a few hundred dollars here and there from residents who have, from time to time, expressed opinions on various issues before the town. Feiner and Samis have a lot of gall criticizing Bass and his contributors for this because theirs is a classic case of how one properly exercises his or her First Amendment rights in America.
But the First Amendment does have limitations. You don't have a First Amendment right to use campaign contributions for bribery. Nor can a public official solicit or accept huge campaign contributions from persons with applications pending because to do so may create the appearance of undue influence over a public official's official actions.
Feiner's actions in taking "tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers with applications pending before the town" -- I don't care if it's Bernstein's catch phrase because it fits -- sure sounds like an ethical violation to me.
I don't know how the public can trust Feiner anymore.
Dear 2:22
Please enlighten us with your thoughts regarding Suzanne Berger contributing to Sheehan's campaign, then after Sheehan is elected receiving a no bid contract for her law firm that could be worth upwards of a million dollars, then those attorneys from her firm filling her campaign coffers with tens of thousands of dollars?
Sure sounds like Pay To Play to me.
Speaking of Sheehan, has anyone seen the "Running Man?" Why was the Town Board work session cancelled, where there more subpeonas awaiting Sir Francis????
Dear 2:22,
I don't object to your comments about what I write but I do object to your including Feiner among those with "gall". What proof do you have?
What you as "anonymous" are doing is throwing more of your surplus fecal matter in any direction, hoping it will land somewhere. But, don't you know you are supposed to put the rubber gloves on first.
Golly, now you worked the First Amendment into an a statement about bribery. Do you know someone who has committed bribery?
You're not suggesting that Bernstein or Berger have committed bribery are you?
Maybe you can equal the score by attaching murder, kidnapping and espionage to your next comments on Feiner. No one ever questioned the right of anyone to make contributions, merely the problems caused at the other end when illegal actions can be shown to be the direct result of these "offerings". And frankly, unless you want to acknowledge that the other Town Board members also got paid off, then it would be difficult to say that only one of the five voting members was bribed while the others were not. If your list of "controversial" matters (like zoning changes) were passed by the Town Board I then would have to assume that the other members of the Town Board took money, hid it better than Feiner and voted, not from what they considered to be procedurally or proper by precedent, but solely from ther quid pro quo obligation to some "anonymous" benefactor, perhaps John Bearsford Tipton. If you were truly concerned about what you consider to be the wrong vote outcome, then I would think that you would want to spend a little of your ample time and find out why the other four Town Board members possess similarly "blemished" and mirror voting records.
One possibility that comes to mind is that perhaps these zoning changes were legitimately granted and not the result of lavishing tens of thousands of dollars. Otherwise, trying to punish only one of the five votes seems to be a tad discriminatory since the only proof of wrong-doing appears to be voting in a manner that Edgemont "leaders" disagree with.
And how to explain Eddie Mae Barnes, an Edgemont resident living across from Stone Ridge Manor and voting for it? She must have gotten really big bucks.
I note too that Mr. Bass is not to be questioned because he receives small "token" amounts like $500 from "residents who have expressed opinions from time to time"...
And that would be, for example, Ms McNally who heads up what functions as a pressure group or lobbyist for Edgemont, but all she ever proffers is an "opinion". You are really shovelling the manure here and you know it. And a gift from Bernstein is also another resident who merely has opinions. And local Unions, like organized Labor Unions and Credit Unions, they too must just be merely residents with an occasional opinion. Like we need to stick the Town with the cost of our "apprentices" and sign our lease, thank you.
I note that you are leaning heavily on the word "huge" as in huge difference and huge campaign contributions but which also can be used as huge lies when it is more commonly referred to as the big lie. What is your cut-off point between "huge" and "run-of-the-mill" pedestrian transgressions, like Mr. Bass and Ms. Berger routinely pocket
I don't know how the public can trust the Town Council or Bernstein and McNally anymore.
They've become rather facile at choosing the wrong words, words which don't appear when being join together in a sentence format to convey the truth by the time the final punctuation mark appears.
It must have been taught at the writing class that I missed.
Bernstein went koo koo with his complaint against Feiner. He contradicts himself in his complaint, misrepresented the facts. Can Feiner take legal action against Bernstein? He should.
Mr Krauss,thanks for voicing your opinion,on the library in fridays' Scarsdale Inquirer.
When Mr. Samis was speaking on the moonies for the library, the people at the meetings said he was a nut.How nutty can one be, when the library board is now asking for funds to purchase furniture.
Mr.Samis was right on the money ,but no one believed him.
How much money did the board members especially Juettner get for allowing the library project to proceed. We all know that Feiner was against the new library from the beginning,but the rest of the board was in favor.
I do hope you get the answers that you are looking for especially from Juettner. She probably made a bundle of money from this..
Ha -- the board members making money ? This is another ridiculous charge.
Feiner is the one taking all the money.
His campaign slogan shouldnt be
"Feiner making Greenburgh Green"
It should be
"Greenburgh developers giving the Green to Feiner"
Is there anyone in blogland who can understand that even Developers have rights?
They pay taxes too.
Taxes which keep the taxes for all residents, townwide, down.
People like to shop, need to work in offices and stores, need a place to live, need offices to visit doctors, need contributions to buy furniture for the library...
All these result from the for-profit livelihood of Developers.
Why are they such a maligned group?
Because those that already live here don't want anyone else to, even if they come with school age children or not.
Each new home spells competition for those about to sell their own homes -- those who are moving out of Greenburgh. "First-in" fear being "last-out" when it is time to take their unrealized gain from their home appreciation.
Does everyone in Greenburgh want a zero growth, zero development stance?
The point is that unless you want to buy, with your own shallow pockets, any undeveloped land, then shut up. If the Town or any municipal entity buys it, it is still coming from your pockets in the form of higher taxes. Higher taxes do not help when it is time to sell.
If Developers need greater benefits than exisitng Planning and Zoning rules allow, they, just like individual homeowners, appear before these respective Boards and ASK for variances. These Boards review the applications, get input from the Public and make their decisions regarding variances.
However, when Zoning laws are changed, it requires the additional ounce of prevention of the Town Board vote to make such change, following direction from the other Boards nad the Planning Commissioner.
How this whole idea got started that the Town Supervisor, whoever holds the office, can help Developers and "ram" changes past the independent Boards and the Town Board is nonsense.
What I have been saying for at least six months in advance of this day is that it takes THREE votes to create or deny legislation at the Town Board level.
The Town Supervisor has no vote at the Planning Board or the Zoning Board or even the Ethics Board. Insofar as the members of these independent Boards are appointed by the Town Board, I suppose some idiot could make a case that these individuals might be beholden to those who appoint them. But, they are appointed, again, by THREE votes of the Town Board so we are back to the same starting point.
Even if any ONE of the five members of the Town Board were "influenced" by contributions of Developers, that leaves four votes against any "favor" to Developers.
If something terribly wrong has been done, then all the members of the Town Board must be held equally accountable. Eddie Mae Barnes and Diana Juettner have been around as long as Feiner, Bass filled out a remaining term when he was appointed, served a term of his own and is running again. Sheehan is well into his first term. If you have a beef with any votes or actions taken, you certainly have a beef against Barnes, Bass and Juettner and Sheehan is moving at warp speed to get in the same boat.
And all along the way of all this alleged malfeasance, there were vocal members of the Community, including civic associations, to point out the errors and consequences of each wrongful vote.
Maybe some of those decisions were in fact correct ones, despite the "grievances" of those most immediately affected. Perhaps what is necessary for civilian pressure groups to do is to wage a better battle for the hearts and minds of the individual members of the Town Board instead of focusing their efforts on what just one member does.
It is simple math. If you need three votes, concentrating your effort on one vote will not pay the dividend you seek.
But so far, that hasn't worked too well regarding sidewalks, tree laws or even who pays, A or B.
This hullabaloo is really what psychiatrists call displaced aggression. You can't get your way so you take it out on the Town's whipping boy.
Perhaps it is time to examine your needs and wonder whether they are in step with the rest of the community; maybe that is why you aren't getting your way no matter how hard or often you stamp your feet and pout.
And, I suggest that the role of any Town Supervisor everywhere is to be the public face of the community and court those Developers who, in pursuit of private profit, are reshaping communities everywhere and yielding public benefit along the way.
Any community within a 50 mile radius of a major city (NYC) is going to find that it will experience growth and the attendant pains. Greenburgh is no different and as society around these urban centers becomes more affluent, so does their expectations that they can control their destiny against further incursion. That is simply not the case and reading The Journal News every day proves that Development continues throughout Westchester.
Every day some new project is written about. Either Paul Feiner is omnipresent or there are Feiners is every community.
Regrettably the only answer to stop development is to buy all the sites yourself or to accept the trend or to move. However, the picture was clear as long ago as 25 years ago, remaining in denial is not the appropriate role of the Town Board.
I have been accused of being "anti-Edgemont" which is understandable from my comments. Actually, the more accurate statement would be that I am against several so-called Edegemont "leaders" who claim to speak for the entire community. This is not a proven concept. However what these few have done is to position Edgemont as "how goes Edgemont, goes Greenburgh" and this too is simply not accurate. Edgemont does have a problem with safeguarding its School system from invasion by would-be attendees. But, that is Edgemont's problem, not everyone else's. A piece of the continent IS less than the continent, especially when the part is willing to subvert the remainder in pursuit of its own selfish goals.
Looking back over the last five years, I think readers will recognize that of all the problems facing the entire Town, the majority have come to the surface either as having Edgemont origins or derivative of Edegemont actions.
Either the remainder of the Community is asleep, just like the remainder of the Town Board, or Edgemont "leaders" should give us a break and take a nap themselves.
Whereas their arguments are hollow, they need not fear that they will also be labeled asleep as a result. There already is a community called Sleepy Hollow.
It is time to stop all the fuss and diversion and get on with running the Town.
Samis, you make much sense with one exception. Your explanation seems to assume that Feiner is teking money and being influenced. There is no evidence that this is true, and in fact there is plenty of evidence that Feiner is not a developer's friend since he wants everything to be open space.
The problems with these complainers is not that they don't understand, it is that they have been conditioned to find Feiner at fault for everything, real or imagined or demagogued.
I just received Suzanne Berger's campaign flier. She gives broad generalizations as to what she intends to fight for without any concrete plans to achive her goals. For example:
"Ensuring that teachers and first responders have affordable places to live in Greenburgh."
The pool of teachers and first responders (Fire, Police, EMS) who work or volunteer within the Town of Greenburgh is probably close to one thousand. How does Suzanne plan to create housing for as little as 5% of them? She panders to every civic leader who oposes any development so how can you set aside affordable housing when these leaders want no housing at all?
Suzanne further states that she cares about every child attending world class schools and pledges to "working with our schools and villages to give them the tools they need."
First, you need to state which volunteer school boards have been failing in their duty to get their respective communities the tools that they need. Then you have to state what they are lacking. Bad unionized teachers? Not enough parental involvement? You need to state what you believe is depriving every child of a world class education and how as Supervisor you can make a difference. Or else, most everyone will think that what you really meant was that everyone has to be like Edgemont.
Less posing and more solid facts are needed here.
Is Berger running for the presidency,I don't think so.
IN her camapign message which was received today,tells me that she's trying out for the wrong office.
Her promises are like the ones that Sheehan made during his campaign, To assist the residents of Greenburgh. Well these promises were never kept
Now Sheehan is giving her the same platform,to bring to the public.
There is only one Democratic machine and that is FEINER;BROWN;MORGAN and BEVILLE.
Election prediction: All the incumbants will be re-elected. At the end of the day most residents are happy with the way Greenburgh is run. Low crime, great rec programs, roads plowed, garabage picked up, ect. The current Town Board must be doing something right.
If they are all elected we will have two more years of the spectacle at Town Hall. And Sheehan will get even worse.
Dear 1:08,
I recognize that Feiner has done much, in fact, to thwart development and this has been done despite receiving contributions from Developers. I know the story, so many more acres of parkland etc.
However, what I am suggesting is that the era of "keeping the green in Greenburgh" is over and finished and now that what remains as undeveloped land is a few tag ends of the once verdant countryside. Obviously I am not a politician because I write this knowing that this is not what the average resident wants to hear. Still what remains of undeveloped land is that which is too expensive for taxpayers to acquire and too expensive to maintain. The County can still compete in the north where undeveloped land is still plentiful and relatively inexpensive. But 20 miles out from New York City, it is too sought after for uses other than greenspace. Of course, nothing prevents the Edgemont community from buying contiguous single family homes, tearing them down and creating open space on the underlying land. While, at the same time removing several homes from sending new warm bodies to the School system. One would think that because it would be for such a good cause, that Edgemont sellers would be happy to shave a few bucks off the sale price.
There is another reality to face.
Since Greenburgh is really a bunch of clusters bearing different names, there is no central developed area common to all the political units. White Plains, a city, clearly has a central downtown and what has happened there in the last 10 years is more upbeat than what happened in the last 50. Development represents the rebirth of a dying downtown.
Yet the population of White Plains, for all its high-rise development still remains far less than Greeenburgh.
I'm not suggesting that Greenburgh should or would become White Plains but the point is that what Greenburgh should be doing with what remains of its developable land is not to oppose such development but work to get the best deal in exchange for those "goodies" which are not "as of right". And opposing all development as a right of passage (like what the coming comprehensive plan is planning to restrict to death) is simply the "mountain out of a molehill" because the surge of development is over. We simply have run out of buildable land, a fact also resulting from the steep slope and wetland laws.
As for handling the remaining parcels, what we need is a Town Board that knows how to deal with Developer rightful needs AND also their unjust demands -- and that is not spelled BERGER. We have to understand that private property is not public property. We have to understand that Developers leave behind more than they take away. We have to understand that the government exists to deal with the needs of the population, yesterday, today and tomorrow. We cannot run the ship of state based only on yesterday and today. And tomorrow includes the right to use private property in a manner which in the determination of the owner befits its highest and best use -- in accordance with applicable laws.
However the history of exclusionary laws is not one of a particularly noble platform and would seem to be the antithesis of the Democratic Party platform.
As for how Feiner fits in with this, I am not concerned by contributions made by Developers. Frankly, other than Developers and their support industries, who else can afford to make large contributions. So by limiting the right to accept these contributions to Incumbents,
this concern of conscience works solely to the benefit of the challenger Berger and to the detriment of Feiner. Another interesting angle in the so-called Ethics laws.
I don't care how the laws are crafted, these laws generally take on an anti-constitutional stance, that there is guilt just in accepting a contribution -- more guilt in so doing than in how it might influence an executive action more than it can be shown to have produced an unfavorable result. Outside of politics the equivalent would be for the Police to arrest citizens on the street for the crime of looking suspicious. Yet our Ethics Laws are the pen of good Democrats Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Bernstein.
And for those who want to consider themselves nobler than Caesar, consider how the Ethics Laws were written -- to allow the appearance of impropriety from certain classes of givers. Say to allow getting funds from a political party, something that would be of benefit to Ms. Berger. It would be ok for the local Democrat Party Chair, Ms. Berger, to approve and advocate how funds contributed to the Pary are disbursed. Just three votes and this was approved.
But of harsher reality is Mr. Bass' introduction earlier this year of a Resolution to have the Town be required to hire Union apprentices on Town construction projects of $250,000 or more. Never mind that it was introduced after the Town's only such project, the Library, which was excluded; the intent was to have the Town in the future pay more in awarded contracts because those winning the contracts would have bid recognizing their costs in maintaining such "apprentices". That Mr. Bass and the Town Council are already facing embarrassment regarding the ballooning Library project was reason for him to exclude the Library as per this important piece of local law. But, you ask, what does this have to do with the topic? Be patient.
The new Ethics Laws also happen to exclude contributions from Labor Unions. Labor unions are those entities which, not only are employed by contractors in construction, but also the negotiating body for most of the Town's employees and in this capacity are always doing business with the Town. But because their campaign contributions are always welcome, candidates are blessed by Ethics law standards governing propriety which exclude Unions as questionable sources of funding.
The point I am so painfully and perpetually making is that the new Ethics laws are not written for parity or justice, they have been written solely to curb Feiner and aid those who oppose him. Don't make the common mistake that because they are named "Ethics" laws that they are about ethics; they are only about politics and in particular about this year's politics. Which is why they were rushed to passage despite acknowledge flaws which "can always be amended".
Everything that Bernstein has had his rubber stamp Town Council perform is for one purpose: to unseat Feiner. And that includes writing and passing unrelated laws so that Feiner could be headlined as one who routinely violates laws.
Not only the phrase "tens of thousands of dollars" but also such slogans as "using town equipment" have been featured on his discourses and one need only think back again to the early Spring and remember Mr. Sheehan introducing legislation to "curb abuses of the Town's email system".
Entirely an unrelated event? But it too passed, just three votes.
What is needed is to have the balance of power restored and to have the "right" just three votes cast by those in office. Then, these unfair laws created with, one person to penalize and one person to benefit, can be removed.
In conclusion development can and should not be discouraged. If citizens want to pay the market costs of preserving open space while simultaneously removing tax rateables, that is their choice. But since all those costs: Unions, gasoline, operating budgets including the Library and Parks, sidewalks, and a Court expansion, will continue to rise while mortgage tax and the Town's general funds continue to decline, I think that demands for increasing rateables is going to be the only solution to the bind. You can't expand greenspace and face higher costs together without more revenues. And you don't get these revenues from the private sector by telling it that they can't build at all or build not what THEY determine is the highest return for a non-replenishing asset, land.
So in my book, unless you can prove that Feiner forced the other members of the Town Board to vote against their own judgement, then I would direct the voting jury to return a verdict of not-guilty on all counts.
Mr. Bernstein can spend the rest of his life appealing this decision but, in my book, if Feiner wants to be Supervisor for life, it is ok by me.
Feiner (and Samis) ignore the fact that Bernstein's complaint before the ethics board is not based on the change in the ethics laws.
To the contrary, in the very first paragraph of this complaint, Bernstein says that everything he alleges is based on the ethics laws as they were in effect back when Feiner took the tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the developers with applications pending before the town.
The Journal News had it right a few months ago when they wrote an editorial that said Feiner acts as if there's one set of rules for him, and another set for everyone else.
It comes as no surprise that a gadfly like Samis, who doesn't own a home in Greenburgh and doesn't pay any property taxes here either, would argue that it doesn't matter that Feiner doesn't abide by the rules, that it doesn't matter if developers give him lots of money while they have applications pending -- that he should instead be crowned "supervisor for life." Feiner presumably agrees.
It sort of reminds me of Hugo Chavez demanding the other day that Venezuelans amend their constitution to allow him to be president for life. We've also seen the same story unfold in several former Soviet countries.
In America, though, we have rules, they apply to everyone, and no one is supposed to be above them. Even Feiner.
Another prediction.
All incumbenents will be re-elected.
Feiner will be indicted.
Everyone will then be happy, excpet his special interests.
Will Bernstein disclose, under oath, his client list and if he is being paid to fight Feiner? He's spending thousands of hours, going after Feiner. He either doesn't work or is being paid handsomely by someone to fight Feiner. We have a right to know.
Bernstein should also disclose, under oath, if he was a silent investor in a land deal the town previously turned down. No accusations being made that he was. THis could be another motive-a rational for his aggressive behavior.
I like Bass. He speaks up unlike some of the other incumbents.
What does paying property taxes have to do with Bernstein's crooked ways of doing things.
Bernstein was willing to take over a parcel of land on Dromore Rd.
Many of us have high property taxes because Bernstein and the rest of the clan in Edgemont fought all development then and now along Central Ave,
Bernstein got caught with his pants down and now he is trying to destroy the reputation of Samis, Feiner ,developers and lawyers.
The ethics board should be abolished as Samis suggested because they all work for Bernstein and Sheehan.
Being a home owner in Edgemont,Hartsdale or Fairview has become a nightmare with people like the above running the town.
Where does this stop.
The board answers to Bernstein and co.the ethics board follows Sheehans directions.
You said that Feiner does not follow the rules set forth in Greenburgh,I think you have this turned arround.
He tries to follow the rules but he is constantly overruled by the famous four.
You are starting to believe in all the lies that Bernstein is trying to make us all believe.but he's not doing a good job.
"Feiner making Greenburgh Green"
Yea, green with overgrown weeds throughout the town, particularly along the Central Park Avenue median strips. It's baffling that the supervisor makes the choice not to direct the appropriate people to perform this routine municipal expectation, despite years of requests from citizens.
Bernstein is so eaten up with hated that he needs medical care asap.
Anyone who has so much time to lie about different people ,has to think about his own downfall.
He has worked day and night to make the supervisor look like the bad guy,not realizing that in the end he[Bernstein] has turned out to be the biggest crook,and the worse liar.
He cannot see what he is doing wrong,because he thinks that he is above the law.
Whomever sides with Bernstein,are just as sick as he is.
I know little about Berger, but I do know that 16 years is way too long for anyone to be in the Supervisor's position. I just can't bring myself to consider supporting Mr. Feiner's re-election. Actually, I think it's selfish of him to run for office yet again.
Whomever believes in what Bernstein is saying about contributions received from developers,waiting for ok's on their projects is also convicting the planning and zonning boards of accepting contributions,
HE fails to tell us the procedure taken for one to build anything here in Greenburgh.
Feiner and the council members are the last to vote on the projects,so where does he get off saying that Feiner gets paid under the table for his services.
If the ethics board believes this then neither of them knows town rules and regulations.
The ethics board is a henchman for Sheehan.They have already been the judges and jury in the complaint that Bernstein [a lawyer]has presented to them.
Sheehan set the laws and they have to follow.
The ethics board forgot one thing in taking Sheehan's advice, he's not a lawyer.
From what I understand he's not even a good forensic investigator
in some criminal cases,so what good did he do or will do for the ethics board.
Ethics' board think about your affilations with Sheehan and the board members.
Listening to their advice will be the biggest mistake you will ever make.
I received Barnes,and Bass's campaign literature which is right to the point. Keep looking up to heaven because both of you do need divine intervention.
When will Bernstein be deposed re: Dromore Road scandal?
Who do you suggest depose Bernstein? He hasn't committed an indictable offense so the DA's of various jurisdictions have no interest - unless the deposition is taken as part of an investigation of possible criminal activities committed by any one of several elected Town officials...
You may not like what Bernstein has done, but it doesn't appear to be criminal.
Bernstein's conduct wasn't criminal. It was treacherous and disgusting.
Greenburgh historian,,Bernsteins intent to commit a crime is enough to be deposed. Had the plot not been caught in time he would have completed the crime.
Does he think that he is beyond the law because he's a lawyer?
With his knowledge of the law and the oath that he took when he became a lawyer ..he should have known better.
He speaks of another lawyer [Caro]there is no difference between the two of them.
One stole from a few of his clients, but Bernstein would have made a good score at the expense of Greenburgh residents.
Isn't it interesting that Feiner and his supporters don't even try to defend Feiner's having taken tens of thousands of dollars from developers with applications pending before the Town.
Nor do they defend his taking $10,000 from Chase Caro, a convicted felon who stole from his elderly clients whom Feiner illegally hired last November to be his lawyer to defend the illegal million dollar giveaway to the Valhalla schools.
Instead, they attack Bernstein for meeting -- lawfully -- with a developer in an attempt to get some open space for Edgemont -- something Feiner has never done for Edgemont in his 16 years in office.
Back for more sport???
You whine about Feiner's supporters not trying defend the fact that he took tens of thousands from developers.
The difference beyween the Feiner crowd and the Sheehan/Bernstein crowd is that we know about the contributions because Feiner disclosed them as per the law.
It is the Sheehan/Bernstein crowd who don't like to disclose things; like the meeting in Harrison.
The Sheehan/Bernstein crowd are trying to create the impression that developer money is somehow tainted. I would like to have 1% of the developer money that Hillary Clinton, Charles SChumer and Nita Lowey have accepted during their careers.
You go on to state:
"Instead, they attack Bernstein for meeting -- lawfully -- with a developer in an attempt to get some open space for Edgemont"
Well sport, we don't know about the legality of this meeting now do we? Sheehan was subpeopned by the Troy attorney but avoided giving testimony to the Zoning Board by refusing to show up to their meeting. Bass, Barnes, Juetner, McNally, Bernstein and Sheehan have all so far refused to give sworn testimony. My guess is that when Bernstein is brought up on ethics charges by the New York State Bar Association and everyone is deposed, we will find out the truth about the meeting. The Harrison Six are purported to have avoided an illegal meeting by having the Town Board members play musical chairs and not being present in the meeting room at the same time. Super Lawyer Bob gave them bad advice on this one. Conspiring to circumvent a law IS BREAKING A LAW! Bernstein and Juetner will probably be disbarred for their actions.
Well sport, better luck next time.
Paul will be in trouble with the upcoming EThics Board Hearing based on Krauss's (Sheehan's Edgemont Campaign Manager) 2004 complaint that was dismissed by the Westchester County District Attorney. Paul is not in trouble because he did anything wrong. He is in trouble because Sigal & Co. are controlled by Sheehan/Bernstein. This is why Sheehan pushed through the Ethics legislation. It has nothing to do with ethics. Sheehan could care less about ethics (see violation of Valhalla Superintendant's First Amendment Rights, See Gestapo like police involvement in e-mails, See illegal meetings concerning Dromore Road). It is about winning. Sheehan put Mike Sigal in this position so that he would be in place to charge Feiner with something before the election. Sheehan/Bernstein will stop at nothing to get Feiner out of the way so that they can control Greenburgh. We then will have more violations of our rights to look foward to under their tyrannical regime. Sigal is from Edgemont. He will do Bernsteins bidding. Everyone must see through what will undoubtably be a political decision by the Sheehan/Bernstein controlled ethics board to charge Feiner with something.
I just hope Samis and Garfunkel will be at hand for the hearing on the 29th. Sheehan/Bernstein influence the press through Kaminer so someone must be there to offer a differing opinion.
Clearly the ethics board is a set up. One person was selected without even offering his resume!!!! The complaint against Paul was sped up and the complaint filed against Bass was slowed down on purpose so that Mike Sigal could pound Paul before the election and give Bass a pass.
On one hand, it would be great if Edgemont broke away from the Town. Bernstein, McNally, Krauss, O'Shea and Sigal would be rendered powerless as far as the rest of us are concerned. On the other hand, our taxes will rise. We need to find out how much. Maybe it is worth the price.
The Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee received donations from some of the same people Feiner received donations from. The committee is donating to the Berger/Bass/Barnes campaign. They are receiving donations indirectly from the people who are not supposed to give directly to the candidates. Berger/Bass/Barnes are hypocrites.
So Sigal is a friend of Bernstein,and to boot he lives in Edgemont,this will turn out to be a kangaroo court.
Sigel works for Bernstein and Sheehan.
How can anyone get things done legally anymore,with this Edgemont clan.
Have not heard much from Edgemont Jim. Where have you been Jim Lasser? Last we heard you said you did not have enough evidence to comment on the Dromore Road situation. Well Jim, how are we supposed to get any evidence if your pals Bernstein and McNally and their shills on the Town Council refuse to offer sworn testimony?
Tell us Jim. Is this how they do things in Edgemont? When one of your own (or two) gets caught in a potential illegal situation your whole community clams up and says nothing. Disgraceful! I thought the code of Omerta was only for gangsters.
Why don't you break your silence Jim and call for the Town Council to make a sworn statement regarding their meeting with the Troys under penalty of perjury. Separate yourself from Bernstein and McNally. Show the rest of us that at least some Edgemonters care about the truth.
I have said nothing because there is nothing new to say.
Bernstein and McNally are private citizens and free to attend whatever meetings they wish. They are also free to keep their client lists confidential and their private lives private. Impugning their reputations under the cover of anonymity is cowardly - and the stock in trade of people not worthy of the effort to answer. Mr. Garfunkel has invoked the notion of the Star Chamber - I would suggest two of the most repugnant features of the Star Chamber were the anonymnity of the judges and the inability of the accused to confront their accusers. By making anonymous accusations, you place yourself squarely in the camp of those who would disembowel the Constitution to preserve it. Your allegations would receive far more attention if you signed your name.
The reality is that Sheehan, Bass, Juettner and Barnes are not shills for anyone. If they were controlled by Benstein and McNally, the moratorium would have been passed - probably by a vote of 4 to 1, because as Hal reminds us, it only takes 3.
If you wish to put everyone under oath and "solve" the problem, please do not forget to include subpoenas for Richard Garfunkel, Hal Samis, Donald Siegal, William Lawyer, Mark Stellato, Al Regula, Richard Brodsky, Andrea Stewart Cousins, Tom Abinanti and anyone else who might be able to shed some light on what must surely be the most nefarious, most complex and farthest-flung conspiracy since Aaron Burr tried to create a sovereign nation on the western frontier.
Lasser, mocking and exaggerating shouldn't be your style.
What Bernstein and McNally did may have been legal, but they set out to conspire with Bass and Sheehan, with the usual compliance of Barnes and Juettner, to screw the rest of Greenburgh to get what they wanted.
It would have been OK if they had done it in the open. That way others could have weighed in and been heard.
What they did was indefensible, and what the Town Council did was illegal.
If this is the best you can do then it would be wise to continue your silence.
Lasser,your friends are guilty,since they had intention to commit a crime.
The town board members are just as guilty.if not more,being town officials.
You could call whomever you want to take an oath,they have nothing to add to this crime.
The six were trying to screw the Town of Greenburgh loyally.
Your friends seem to forget that people are watching them in every move that they make from now on.
To be living in another part of Greenburgh other than Edgemont,with outright crooks,is a pleasure.
Thank you for paying for the parks,and anything else that comes our way.
Note to the two anonymous bloggers who commented on my comment:
Sign your names and take responsibility. You want everyone to be open and aboveboard? I agree - and I always sign my name.
Dear Jim,
There is a major circumstance that you are overlooking re Mr. Bernstein, private citizen.
If we are to believe "his" answers on this blog, then he was not in fact attending the meetings, with the Developer in his Harrison office on Saturdays, as a private citizen.
Mr. Bernstein claims that he was instead representing the Town of Greenburgh as its Agent; he prepared written documents for this end and the members of the Town Council did not, at the time, dispute his doing so.
A likely, recurring little problem if you believe this.
Bernstein was not given any authority to represent the Town by any member of the Town's Legal Department (lacking these credentials explains why he used his own name as signatory) so here's the choice that you can help him with:
1) He was there as a private citizen and seeking to purchase the Dromore piece for his private interest or that of others(previously referred to as "his designees")
or
2) He was illegally appropriating an official capacity by representing the Town
Now I am not a lawyer and I don't wish to cause him any personal or professional harm (which is why I have not made a complaint as I was debunked for not doing) but I don't think that the requests for him to be deposed for what he knows of these meetings are so far out of line. Certainly the Public is entitled to know in what capacity he was attending these meetings.
So when you write that he is a private citizen, like Michelle, and has the right to attend any meeting he wishes, I point out to you that I am not troubled by that idea, certainly I would position myself as wanting to be similarly granted such an allowance. And I allow that Ms McNally is not an attorney and made no claims to be representing anyone other than herself and perhaps her civic association affiliations. However Mr. Bernstein is an attorney; he did draft documents and enter into negotiations regarding the purchase and I doubt he can claim an "amicus" role, at least any more than any other prospective buyer would have a right to attend these meetings. On the other hand, if the Seller's attorney was not allowed to be present, if the Town Supervisor was not allowed to be present, indeed if a condition was that I could not even be told about the meetings...then I raise the issue about whether the suitability of an "amicus" filing would be likely. For all purposes, these meetings were indeed "secret".
So in which construct do you see him, the lady or the tiger or, the dumb Democrat?
Were he not so aggressive in his allegations about Feiner, it would seem appropriate that he, the accuser, should himself follow the same standards that he so freely defines for others.
Dear Hal -
The devil is in the details - true for Mies van de Rohe and for blog commentators. You use of the word "if" three times (it only takes 3) in the next to last sentence of your next to last paragraph speaks volumes. The use of "if" clearly indicates you are less than sure of what "really" happened - as are all of us who were not present. To the best of my knowledge, Bernstein himself has never said he was acting as "legal agent" or "legal representative" or "surrogate" for the Town of Greenburgh. That is an assumption for which I find no evidence in anywhere - except in the unsworn commentary on this blog and equally unsworn letters to the media. Just as I absolutely do not believe those comments which have linked you to anyone with fiduciary interest in Dromore, neither would I like either Bernstein or McNally to anyone with a fiduciary interest. It is speculation at best - and always undertaken by those hiding under the cloak of Anonymous.
Hal did you not ask Tim Lewis a question at the last town meeting,concerning Bernsteins role in this criminal act. I don't recall the question but I do recall Tim Lewis's answer was NO.
So how could Lasser say that Bernstein,and McNally may not have been at the meeting.
Lasser stop defending your two friends,remember the saying:tell me who your friends are and I will tell you are.
Dear Jim,
Then there is no truth to the rumor that Bernstein was purchasing the property for the Town?
My use of "if" refers to what I cannot personally attest, even depose, to.
Likewise I cannot expect you to speculate on what is in another's mind.
However, myself, yourself and anonymous bloggers have had extensive "conversations" on this blog about a real document(s) written by Bernstein which has been the source of all the controversy over whether Bernstein was buying or causing the property to be purchased for himself or for the Town. References contained within this document(s) discuss contingencies regarding the Town's or any other purchaser's inability to meet the cash payment within the time limit. References within this document discuss granting the owner (seller) certain
development rights on a residual portion of the property should an outright sale not occur.
The Bernstein camp states that, without a doubt, the property was intended for purchase (re this agreement) only by the Town.
The Samis side reads the agreement(s) as permitting Bernstein to make the purchase for himself or associates; this so, then follow my speculations as to what use the property could be put to were it to be privately purchased. Certainly seeing Bernstein's name as the Party of the Second Part, the buyer, is an invitation to realize this as possible. And seeing that the Party of the First Part, the seller and the Party of the Second Part, the buyer would agree to keep this as a confidential agreement would justify my belief that it was never intended to inform any other buyer (the Town) of its rights to proceed as the buyer.
What part of this are you not getting? I am using my name and am not part of the "anonymous" generation. The document(s) exists and it was written by Bernstein.
Was Bernstein at these meetings in a private capacity or in an official capacity? Going by the Town Attorney, Bernstein was not there representing the Town. And this is consistent with my view.
So rather than engage in speculation which you abhor, I would think that when a signed posting (mine) which supports pursuing the means to end the speculation and replace it with "facts", that you would be in line beside me in seeking a response from Mr. Bernstein, rather than tolerating the "confusion".
Furthermore, because you are a Edgemont resident, a concerned Edgemont resident, who has presumably elected Bernstein to represent Edgemont and its citizens whereas I am not an Edgemont resident, I would think that you would even be standing in front of me on the line seeking clarification.
You might even be asking Bernstein (again he was "elected" to represent all Edgemont) to publicly state what happened because you want to know from the horse's mouth, not what you read on the blog. And should you have heard differently, then perhaps you would tell all of us because the aftermath of all this is important, perhaps even germane to an imminent event, the Democratic Primary. And common sense assumes that Edgemont residents would seek friends/allies beyond its borders; that tolerating an air of murkiness is not the way to go about this.
Feiner is "head" of Greenburgh and his words and actions are being judged circumspect; Bush is "head" of the United States and his words and actions are being judged circumspect, then why is it tolerable for Bernstein, the "head" of Edgemont to avoid scrutiny for his words and actions.
Like it or not, Bernstein has made himself a public figure and in l'affaire Dromore, he has managed to dodge the bullet by changing his business cards from lawyer, private citizen, ECC chair, agent for the Town/GNC.
How long will you continue to allow this game to continue without being involved? This benevolent neutrality, in light of controversial matters, is not a role you wear well. You are not being asked to be the judge or even the jury; what you are being asked is whether it would be appropriate for Mr. Bernstein to explain his activities and end the confusion. Even while you take comfort in saying that the facts are not in, even while you don't participate in any plan to have these missing facts become public -- even from Bernstein who is not the subject of any notice of claim which might be some refuge for the Town Council, you do wade in when suggesting that a sworn affidavit may not be a valid source of information.
Instead you are playing the sidelines card for all it is worth.
In so doing, you are short-selling Jim Lasser.
And I have only used "if" once in this posting.
"The use of "if" clearly indicates you are less than sure of what "really" happened - as are all of us who were not present."
Lasser, you have hit the nail on the head. We don't know what happened at the Troy meeting in Harrison. How are we supposed to find out what happened if people like you don't call for the Town Council to have sworn statements taken? I hope that you believe that we have a right to know what happened. Or, because of Bernstein and McNally's involvement are you also sworn to the Edgemont Omerta??
To Jim Lasser:
You are right to complain that people write anonymously. There is a reason for it.
Remember last month when someone savaged Michael Kolesar. Kolesar is a former village trtustee who is very knowledgeable about budgets. What reason was there for that savaging? The person who did it is someone is from the Bernstein-Edgemont camp. The reason is that these people don't want to hear knowledgeable informati that don't agree with them. Others have been savaged in the past as well, usually by an anonymous person who is likely Bernstein or one of his followers. The only way to avoid this kind of personal attack is to remain anonymous.
If the Bernstein camp acted in a decent manner then people wouldn't be concerned about giving their names. But do you think people will volunteer to be savaged? I won't.
I haven't seen one word of criticism from you about Bernstein. He is a friend of yours, but he has done many things that even a friend should criticize if he is honest.
Right on 1:52---Lasser does not want to tell the truth about his friends.Too bad,that tells us what he is made of.Had it been someone else in trouble ,Lasser would be all over them.
Bernstein and McNally in his eyes have done nothing wrong.
Lasser I didn't realize that you were going blind.
Dear Hal,
What forum do you suggest Bernstein use to present whatever information he may have?
To the commentator who preceeded you: At no time have I ever suggested Bernstein and McNally didn't attend a meeting. They clearly attended some meeting. Just who called that meeting and for what purpose are still not clear. Your continued speculation as to what was in anyone's mind is just that - speculation.
I certainly think the matter should be addressed, but in a star chamber or kangaroo court doesn't seem likely to uncover the truth.
If Tim Lewis said "No, Bernstein wasn't representing the Town." then clearly Bernstein wasn't representing the Town. Was Bernstein representing Edgemont? I thought my publicly elected officials were representing me along with everyone else - and when their opinions differ from mine, or they have failed to inform me about what is going on in my community, I welcome the advocacy from citizen activists.
As I recall, Danny Gold cut an extraordinary deal for the Irvington School District vis-a-vis the Unification Church property - and allegedly benefitted to a signficant personal extent from the eventual deal. Was he representing the school district? The Town? Or, did he take the initiative as the head of his local civic association to pursue an opportunity he believed would benefit his community?
Finally, sadly the name-calling and character assassination are not limited to either side of the opinions expressed on this blog. Anonymous commentators from all points of view have failed to distinguish themselves as role models. Hal and I disagree about many of the topics discussed on this blog, but there is an underlying respect for each other and the process of finding out what's happening.
Maybe you are right, Mr. Lasser, that the name calling and character assassination are not limited to one side, though it seems to me much more on one side than the other. But since this is so, you shouldn't be surprised that people don't want to reveal their real names.
I respectfully disagree - I am not particularly courageous but feel the obligation to sign my name. Others do as well. We've all been savaged at times, but if everyone signed, everyone would know who has stepped over the bounds of fairness and decency.
The difference is Danny Gold did not operate in secret as did the Town Council along with Bernstein and McNally. Danny Gold did not attempt to circumvent open meetings laws by having town council members play musical chairs in front of Reverand Sun Yueng Moon. The comparison between what Danny Gold did and what Bernstein and McNally did is unfair and unjust. While I did not agree with the purchase of Taxter Ridge, everything was done in the open. There is no comparison to what the Edgemonters did.
Dear Jim,
I know you didn't answer my posting.
So let's deal with what you did write and then I shall repeat my request.
Forum for Bernstein? I'm sure that The Scarsdale Inquirer could be "pressured" to allocate some space to Mr. Bernstein's inside story of what went on, jokes and all. Failing that, Mr. Bernstein has written comments on this blog, even under his own name. He could even use his 5 minutes of public comment.
But Jim I didn't write a posting addressed to you because I thought that you needed help in finding a place for Mr. Bernstein to clear up the "confusion". Finding a forum is not the problem.
Similarly, although the purchase of Taxter Ridge was something that you know I opposed, you may also remember that this was in the days of "Deputy Supervisors" and it is my recollection that Mr. Gold was thus, gainfully or not, acting as an Agent of the Town. Mr. Bernstein, since you are willing to accept Tim Lewis's statement, was not an Agent of the Town. However, since you have now travelled part of the distance, why not go the whole route? If we agree that Mr. Bernstein was not acting on behalf of the Town, who was he acting for?
He did not just attend and take notes or make comments -- he drafted documents.
Then I read your acknowledgement that the confusion should be cleared up but not in a star chamber of kangaroo court. This is a reasonable global desire but then let me throw it back to you and say, where then? The Town Council (they who attended these meetings) are protected from speaking because of the developer's notice of claim. So, they won't speak.
Feiner wasn't allowed to attend these meetings so he has nothing to add. No one else from Town staff attended these meetings, so there is no one else at Town Hall who is in a position to clear the matter up.
Which brings us back to the private citizens, Bernstein and McNally, YOUR Edgemont civic leaders. They are not bound by the conventions of "notice of claim". They attended the meetings. They are YOUR elected Edgemont civic leaders who speak out on all other matters Edgemont.
And thus that is why I served the ball to you. YOU have the right to demand of your civic leaders a public accounting for what went on. Surely with space at the Harrison meetings so limited, only those who had some special status were able to get past the velvet rope. I suggest that if they were not there as buyers for purposes unknown (see I've removed speculation) then Bernstein and McNally were there because of the public identification of them as the Edgemont "voice". Thus, you are in the position that I am not; you have the right to "demand" an explanation before witnesses (the rest of the public) of their activities on your and Edgemont's "behalf".
This should not be so confounding. In addition to your interest re matters civic association and school board, you represent that you are as "in the dark" as anyone and seek the explanation if only to clarify "who called the meeting" and "for what purpose" as well as putting an end to "speculation".
Knowing that the matter is headed toward litigation which insures the silence of the other participants due to their Town employment, you also know that the only people who can remove most of the veils surrounding this matter are Bernstein and McNally. Certainly, without even a moment's hesitation, I would understand (not agree though) with Mr. Bernstein reluctance to speak out because he has some involvement insofar as he did more than just attend. And he has his reputation to protect while he is so busy attacking the Town Supervisor.
So that leaves us with Ms. McNally, who as the former chair of the ECC and still closely associated with its executive policies and procedures, is ideally positioned to clear the air. In The Inquirer, she has already attempted to sanitize the predicament but perhaps with your gentle prodding, she might be more "willing" to address the still bothersome and lurking matters she failed to answer in the space provided by the newspaper. Matters which you acknowledge still are questions desperately seeking answers.
So Jim, if you really want the answers you have to do your part by asking the questions. Bernstein and McNally aren't going to address these issues (dirty linen) in public unless you provide the laundry room.
The ECC is the umbrella for all those dues paying individual neighborhood civic associations. So far neither the ECC nor any individual civic association seems to have any record of any vote to acquire the Dromore property or even to send representatives to make inquiries. Given that you and others belong to and attend these meetings, I can't understand why no one from Edgemont is seeking clarity and would be willing to "share" such when and if obtained.
As only a mere renting resident of Unincorporated, I cannot understand why Edgemont keeps asking for things from the Town and its residents but is unwilling to play good neighbor and share information with its sister "republics".
Perhaps, you could be the unappointed goodwill ambassador, or even be just a mere resident, and urge your ECC leadership to tell the rest of us and yourself, just what went on.
Paraphrasing the Pussycat Dolls AND Sy Syms "Don't you want your neighbors to be informed citizens like you and me"?
Gold operated in secret and took money for it! He didn't become a deputy town supervisor until well after he began taking to the moonies and no one has ever seen the correspondence between Deputy Supervisor Gold and anyone - including the Trust for Public Land - which is the entity from which the Town actually purchased the property. The moonies tell of one figure, the town reports another and when you add up the numbers and there is a modest 6 figures not accounted for.
Lasser's right - there is a very good strong comparison here. But because there were only villagers involved - it doesn't count.
If Bob Bernstein did not conspire with Bass & Sheehan to meet secretly to work out a deal with a developer so a deed would be transferred to him (not Greenburgh) then he should have the courage to testify under oath.
You see Mr. Lasser, you see how the Bernstein/Sheehan crew attack?
3:51 malignes Gold without going over what the deal was. The Town, the County and the State all agreed to the deal and each contributed toward it. 3:51 believes that Gold was able to cut a side deal with the moonies with all of those government antities watching? Come on.
Mr. Lasser, you should dismiss the comments of 3:51 and call for Bernstein, or as Samis suggests, McNally to come clean.
The Bernstein/Sheehan crew are now going to attempt to deflect criticism of them by attacking others. It won't work.
Which returns us to the original question I posed to Samis and he volleyed back over the net.
Where does anyone propose McNally and/or Bernstein appear? If they are believed when they say nothing happened, why would a sworn deposition be more convincing? And what would be wrong with waiting until the "notice of claim" brings a full hearing in open court with all sides being heard under oath?
If Troys' lawyers chose to depose Bernstein and McNally as part of the discovery process would that settle the matter? If it would, then I am certain that day will come - though probably not as quickly as anyone (including me) would like. Short of testifying in open court, under oath, have you another suggestion?
Dear Anonymous bloggers,
You are giving Mr. Lasser the opportunity to address instead anonymous comments as a "way of life", the Taxter Ridge deal and who's beating on whom. Anything but what is the difficult and current issue: can he persuade Mr. Bernstein or Ms. McNally to clear the muddy waters?
This is a difficult matter for him because he is an Edgemont resident, because he considers Bernstein and McNally as his friends and because he also considers me as one.
I have put it on a personal basis by separating myself from anonymous posters so he cannot avoid the issue on anonymous grounds.
He is further troubled by his written comments that he is unable to come to any conclusion while there is so much "speculation" in the air.
Thereby I have appealed to his fact-seeking nature and asked for him to go to the source, the only persons at the meetings (Bernstein and McNally) who are not insulated by the "notice of intent".
Also, since Jim is a respected mainstay of Edgemont civic associations and the school board, he knows that Bernstein carried no "portfolio" from these groups. Neither did Bernstein carry a "portfolio" from the Town.
So, that leaves the question of why Bernstein and McNally were at these meetings. If they were not there as private citizens interested in purchasing the property, if they were not there as Agents for the Town, then the only conceivable explanation is that they were there to "report" back to the Edgemont civic associations as to what was going on re a controversial development matter in Edgemont. And this is the problematic issue for Jim: if he can't view them as buyers or town agents, then the only other alternative for Jim is to regard them as ECC representatives.
If so, then they should be making their report on these meetings to the membership. Edgemont residents.
However,the meetings took place in February.
Then too, Jim knows that I have been especially hard on Edgemont and that my criticism of Edgemont leaders will look justified if Edgemont cannot police itself, especially at a time when they need the support of the rest of Greenburgh for such things as moratoriums.
Finally, Jim is an honorable man so if he waves the knife at Caesar, he needs grounds to do so.
My mission was to supply those grounds.
Don't muck it up and give Jim a way out of his dilemma.
The "Gold-en Deal" was simple - the Trust for Public Land purchased the Unification Church's property for one price and sold it to the Town-led consortium for another, higher price. Danny got his gold from the Trust as a commission on their sale of the property. You wanted the story, you got it.
The auditors have NEVER been able to sanctify the deal because the Trust for Public Land has refused every request for information. They claim it is priviledged and disclosure would prevent them from being able to operate in secret!!!!
Having read Mr. Lasser's return of service only after my previous posting, I say this:
My "volley" was indeed over the net otherwise it would fall back on my side and the point would go to Lasser. What he fails to add is that not only did the ball go over the net but it landed "in bounds" and when Jim swung and missed, the point went to me.
Now Jim is trying to say that we cannot even hold the match because the U.S. Open is underway and we have to wait for that to be over first. Thus any "exhibition" matches played between ourselves now won't count and the Town will have to wait a few months more until Bernstein and McNally may have to submit to sworn deposition in the finals held well after the fall election.
What I seek is "immediate" gratification and the opportunity to get them on record so there will something to compare the inevitable sworn testimony against. And, perhaps, something said today will offer insight into "unrelated" at hand matters such as the candidacies of Mr. Bass and Ms. Barnes, two of the Town Council running for re-election.
So Jim, better late than never is your placebo. But didn't I already discuss "forums" when I proposed an explanation in The Scarsdale Inquirer. I'm sure that the newspaper would go along with printing the key which unlocks the mystery. And didn't I also propose that they should be reporting to the ECC which I would think would be curious, just like you? Or does the ECC conduct business on a "don't anybody bring me no bad news" basis?
So far, nothing has gone to Court and yet we do have a sworn affidavit by the Developer, the truthfulness of which has nevertheless been questioned. Why can't we have something similar from your normally outspoken "civic leaders"?
And weren't these venues (Inquirer, ECC report) the basis of "what I volleyed back over the net". So it is troubling to me why you keep "misunderstanding" a simple request. Greenburgh residents want an explantion, now!
I had thought that you also wanted it but it is beginning to look that you would prefer that it arrives after the election, if not at all.
To make it simple, here in no uncertain terms is what could be the forum which you cannot envision.
Mr. Bernstein and Ms. McNally should voluntarily produce sworn affidavits solely because their presence at the meetings in Harrison has raised "questions".
They should do so because they head up the ECC and not all ECC members are in agreement on the purpose of these meetings. Bernstein and McNally, even at best in a minor role, represented the ECC at these meetings. The ECC is entitled to full disclosure of what transpired. Should these voluntary disclosures be found to be at odds with their own subsequent depositions and sworn testimony of others, this discrepancy should be the basis for their resignations from the ECC.
Now, Jim, what's to misunderstand?
Congratulations Hal,
Your long term questioning of Lasser has gotten the following information out of him:
1. Neither the ECC or any other Edgemont Civic group authorized Bernstein & McNally to acquire the Dromore Road property.
2. Lasser admits that Bernstein & McNally attended some sort of meeting.
3. Lasser admits that he has not been briefed as to what is going on regarding the Dromore Road/Harrison Meeting.
These admissions from Lasser are very important. What it indicates is that not only did Bernstein and McNally operate in total exclusion of the rest of the Edgemont Community, but they also have failed to brief important members of the Edgemont Community such as Jim Lasser as to the goings on at the Harrison Meeting.
Since Bernstein and McNally have not come clean with Edgemont Leaders we can view that as a strong indication that something went on that they don't want people to know about. Innocent people are not worried about the truth.
Keep up the good work Hal.
Dear 6:25
What can also be established is just how shallow "Edgemont Leaders" are. Bernstein and McNally didn't involve them in their Troy business but they all have adopted the concept of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Lasser's troubles with what forum would be appropriate for Bernstein to tell all in is an excellent example of how Edgemonters are dodging the issue. Shame on them!!!!
I'm a newcomer and it seems to me that people like Jim Lasser have way too much time on their hands to make accusations. This guy should get a life - maybe start playing cards with Francis Sheehan? That way they can both cheat, yell at each other and make each other happy.
I admired various information and reviews.
antminer s19j (90th/s)
Post a Comment