Sunday, December 09, 2007
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGETTED ON FORECLOSED PROPERTY IN ARDSLEY, DOBBS FERRY
The Town Board is planning to vote on a resolution this Wednesday that will move the town forward re: a proposal to turn foreclosed properties at the waterwheel (Ardsley) and 27 Main Street (Dobbs Ferry) into affordable housing opportunities. The town will be receiving back taxes on the waterwheel & 27 Main Street properties. In addition, a developer has offered the town one million for the waterwheel property. It's possible that additional revenue can be obtained before we finalize the transfer of property. A formal RFP will be issued to potential developers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
As long as all Town residents/employees/volunteers have equal shot at apartments. ARedley should not get first shot. This is discrimination.
Hartsdale FD is looking for volunteers. Join now and be first on the list for the Ardsley housing.
Once again, we haven't learned anything from the past.
A - What is the fair market value of each of these individual properties? How was this determined? Wh independently determined this? Where's the documentation? What is the exact deal - back taxes plus one million in the case of the Ardsley property? What is the split on the back taxes? Same questions for the Dobbs Ferry property?
B - As to who has "first digs" on the respective properties, one must remember that each of the Villages control their own land use - that's one of the "benefits" of being an incorporated Village within a Town. The Ardsley Mayor seemed to propose a "sharing" arrangement regarding priorities for occupancy, that is some of the units will go Village of Ardsley designees as that Village sees fit with the remainder going to Town wide indivuals as the Town may so decide.
Are these units to be rentals? Hopefully yes, but what is specifically being proposed? What happens if an occupant no longer qualifies? This is just the tip of the iceberg and once again the Town is "long" on "ideas" and "short" on specifics to use some Wall Street terms.
Why is Hartsdale FD looking for Volunteers when they are the highest paid career department in the town. Seems like a waste if you ask me.
Paul with the property in Ardsley you had better do the right thing.
This may help in lowering our tax tremendously the next time arround.
Again think first before youleap.
Dear Anonymous 12/9 5:31PM,
The proceeds go into the Town wide or "A" fund. They will not impact the "B" fund and your 23% tax increase for 2008 year or any tax increase beyond. The full impact needs to be clearly explained to all taxpayers. Certain individuals are "cute" when it come to truly "open government".
It is amazing -- or maybe not so amazing -- that it takes no time at all for the grouchers to start voicing their anger at the villages, in this case Ardsley and Dobbs Ferry, and the interminable A and B budget complaints.
The town collects very modest real estate taxes for these village properties. The large taxes go to the school district and for village real estate taxes. The reason why the town has the right to foreclose is because the town must guarantee the collection of school taxes. Once back taxes are collected, the town has a very small ongoing interest. If it wasn't for the school tax guarantee requirement the town would have no role in this at all. That is why historically the town has allowed the villages to make the call on these issues.
The writers from unincorpoirated should stop feeling so proprietary. Ardsley and Dobbs Ferry are going to have to deal with the properties, the services, the taxes, the residents in those properties, and so on. You would not like it if the residents of those villages told the town how to deal with its affordable housing obligations, its work force, its residents who can't afford high rents or prioces, its planning and zoning, and so on.
Sit back and act like a neighbor for a change. A good neighbor. And don't start with your A and B budget complaints, because it has nothing to do with this.
The reason Hartsdale FD needs volunteers is because they only have 8 paid guys on duty and when there is a fire, they always have to call mutual aid.
"the interminable A and B budget complaints"
That's why Unincorporated Greenburgh needs to 1) incorporate as three separate villages or 2) redesignate as a city. If I lived in a village, I'd be pretty annoyed about having to pay anything to Greenburgh.
Except that there is no reason for the interminable A and B budget complaints. They were ego-driven political complaints by Bernstein. Before he started there were no complaints and nobody was unhappy. No reason why we can't have that again.
Please try to be accurate - the dispute between the Townwide and Town Outside budget allocations has a VERY long history.
Paul Feiner raised the issue in his 1994 campaign for Supervisor, promising the Fairview comuunity that a fair and just allocation of expenses would insure the funding of the community center forever.
Bernstein brought his suit in response to Feiner's unilateral decision that there would not ever be a change in the allocation of Parks and Recreation expenses which would require the Villages to pay for amenities EVEN if their residents were permitted to use them. He said, and its on the video file of the Town Board meeting, "...and if you don't like it, sue me."
Facts count - except maybe not in Feinertown.
As usual, every discussion about an issue becomes an attack on Feiner.
No point in discussing A and B issues since for some people it always comes down to an ad hominem attack.
"Sharing" = favor the villages = lawsuit.
Yes the village controls zoning. As they should. But once zoned multi family, or whatever necessary, this is Town property.
Dear Mr. Stop Complaining,
Why is it when the law is unfair, like all mortgage recording taxes go to A budget, and the Village keep those taxes for their own properties (allowing them double shot at the tax reveuneu), they say that is the law, but if the law even appears unfair, they whine. Put all Town mortgage recording tax in the B budget, and then I would consider you a fair person.
What do you mean by "Feiner's unilateral decision that there would not ever be a change in the allocation of Parks and Recreation expenses which would require the Villages to pay for amenities even if their residents were permitted to use them."
What unilateral decision? That's the state law, stupid.
And when did Feiner supposedly make this unilateral decision. Or is this one of your fictions?
The villages haven't asked to be allowed to use the parks. Just because the town says that they can, even if only a handful then do, does that give the town the right to pass the costs to all village residents who never asked to use the parks?
Next you will want to charge the villages for street maintenance in unincorporated Greenburgh because villagers come to Central Avenue or East Hartsdale Avenue to shop and bring dollars to Greenburgh businesses.
I believe quite a few village residents use TDYCC and the Lois Bronz child care facility. In fact, these facilities have been expanded and have had hours increased so they can accomodate all. Just because you dont use facilities doesnt mean they arent open to the villages.
When the law favors you, you argue the law.
When the facts favor you, you argue the facts.
And when neither favors you, you bang on the table.
I thought that the topic of this blog was affordable housing on foreclosed peoperty in Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry.
Why are we getting the same old same old about the a and b budgets?
The law is very straight-forward. In all of NY state EXCEPT Greenburgh, the Parks and Recreation budget is a Town-wide obligation. Greenburgh's villages are protected from this by the Finneran Law, a special homerule creation. The fundamental fairness of Finneran has been challenged, in part because the Parks and Recreation expenses of Greenburgh have grown so dramatically over the last 16 years. In part the challenge comes from a failure to offer unincorporated residents the opportunity to vote on acquiring properties like Taxter Ridge. In part the challenge has come because some residents of some parts of unincorporated Greenburgh are made to feel very unwelcome in facilities they pay for -
The system is antiquated, better serving a semi-rural or rural area than a suburban one. Time for a change - which will either emanate from the political leaders at Town and Village Halls, or the Justices of the NY State Court of Appeals.
There is still time to make a choice - soon there won't be.
"or the Justices of the NY State Court of Appeals."
Does 2:47 know that Bernstein is going to appeal?
I suspect whomever loses will appeal. I suspect Town will lose.
Todays NY Times had an article regarding a lawsuit in Long Island re politcally connected people getting first dibs at subsidized housing. I strongly suggest if the Town goes forward with a plan that allows Ardsley to allocate some units (which will end up being likely to non-minorities), the Town first determine if this is likely to result in litigation.
Sell this property outright to a developer.
You do not need affordable housing since you have 40 units enpty for four years.
BRING IN SOME REVENUE
Listening to the work session you do not need another complex with the problems faced by some of the residents.
Sell the property and all other properties that are available to bring in some revenue.
Post a Comment