Supervisor Feiner: AN OPEN LETTER TO UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS PETER SWIDERSKI...

Friday, February 29, 2008

AN OPEN LETTER TO UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS PETER SWIDERSKI...

I am writing to address the good citizens of Greenburgh, following on and reiterating my comments at the Town Board meeting last Wednesday. We would like to see the Town Board and the Villages work cooperatively together. The Villages have no interest in conflict, and no interest in unnecessarily dividing this town. Greenburgh is a wonderful community. As I said on Wednesday, the entire Town boasts of so many advantages, so many resources, and so many good and decent people that the precise fact of where an individual lives in the Town matters less than the fact that we enjoy it together, today and in the future. We are certainly seeking to work towards the pursuit of those goals, hand in hand with the Town Board.
There is apparently some concern regarding recent moves to modify Finneran. After the recent court decision, a re-examination of Town programs has led to the realization that if the Town is to maintain its range of choices and programs, some changes to Finneran would be necessary. The Villages’ interest in a modification to Finneran is to give the Town Board the flexibility to allow non-unincorporated residents access to facilities, parks and/or programs as needed. We have absolutely no problem with the imposition of fees on Village residents, cost plus or otherwise, for that access: it would only be fair. Any resolution asking for such modification to the law should certainly state that. Somehow, there is a perception that we want to allow all village residents to enjoy access to Finneran facilities solely at the unincorporated’s expense. Nobody ever suggested that, and if that is what is being read into what we are proposing, then we want to dispel that notion immediately. It is not what at all what we seek.
This Finneran modification is not intended to benefit the Villages unfairly, and we are open to an approach that makes sense and displays a “good government” sensibility. We believe the modification, in fact, provides greater benefits to Unincorporated Greenburgh than to the Villages, and is very much intended as a “win win” for both sides. It is extended as such, and intended as such. Our first assumption, in dealing with friends and neighbors, is that they operate in good will. It is certainly what is intended on our part, and we hope to be treated as such accordingly.
I will read the responses to this posting and I will try my best to respond to those who extend that courtesy of assuming my good will. Thank you for your time.
Peter Swiderski
Village Officials Committee
Hastings Village Trustee

263 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: No way Jose.
the law will not be amended.
You want to use the parks you start paying taxes as do the unincorporated areas.
The law was in place for the Taxter rd property now all of a sudden it is no good for what you want.
The courts must be and will be thinking that they are dealing with a bunch of idiots.
The court ruled on the Taxter rd property so be it.
There is no difference betwen that parcel and the other parks that we pay taxes for.; 2/29/2008 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: No way Jose.
the law will not be amended.
You want to use the parks you start paying taxes as do the unincorporated areas.
The law was in place for the Taxter rd property now all of a sudden it is no good for what you want.
The courts must be and will be thinking that they are dealing with a bunch of idiots.
The court ruled on the Taxter rd property so be it.
There is no difference betwen that parcel and the other parks that we pay taxes for.; 2/29/2008 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: You did not operate with good will when it came to Taxter rd,now out of the clear blue you want to be the nice guys and work with the unincorporated area residents.
Get a life.; 2/29/2008 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: i think bob burnstein should be charged for the towns legal fees; 2/29/2008 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: It's time to choose to rid ourselves altogether of the antiquated structure of inncorporated/unincorporated that causes us all so many difficulties. Its purpose when Greenburgh was established and when the unincorporated sections were rural and farming was somewhat sensible. It no longer is. Unincorporated Greenburgh needs to either become its own city, or a township entirely comprised of incorporated villages, including the creation of the incorporated villages of Fairview, Hartsdale and Edgemont.; 2/29/2008 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: The Finer haters don't care about our town. The law needs to be changed. Come on guys & gals--don't mess around with our parks.
Let the amendment pass. I want to take my sons friends to the park. I want to play tennis in the winter.; 2/29/2008 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: We need to amend the law. I moved to Greenburgh because of the gold standard reputation our parks programs have. Greenburgh recreation is the best. Don't lose it.; 2/29/2008 7:32 PM
Anonymous said...: oh dear....; 2/29/2008 7:38 PM
Anonymous said...: A piecemeal approach is not acceptable. If you are sincerely interested in the goodwill of the TOV residents a fair approach is necessary. Cost plus would likely ignore the acquisition costs for which bonds were used and repaid, by ONLY TOV people. The hositility you encounter (and I dont know you personnally) is the result of Feiner running roughsod over TOV people. You wanted to litigate Taxter Ridge -- it may be appealed, but in the meantime, if you except us to pay for Taxter Ridge -- all non-TOV people, out of the pool.; 2/29/2008 8:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

Looking at the sophomoric attacks on the TOV respresentives here, how can anyone think that the TOV people are respected. Time for Feiner to call of the dogs.; 2/29/2008 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

One problem is that the Town Council has never been fair to the TOV people. How can you expect us to give control to the Town Council?; 2/29/2008 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Why should Unincorporated be so generous to Ardsley?? It was Ardsley that cried and whined about Anthony Veteran Park in the early 1980's that led to Finnerman in the first place.

Bob Bernstein is a very smart attorney. He put the Villages in a bind no matter how the decision came out. If the Appeals Court upheld the lower Court, Bernstein wins. If the Appeals Court turned over the lower Court's decision, Bernstein still wins because he knew that the Villagers would not be allowed to use our parks.

Ardsley, be careful what you ask for as sometimes you might get it.; 2/29/2008 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...: 8:32 is so clever that he is really dumb, a fitting compare to Bernstein.

The villages don't want to use the town parks, don't you understand. The only town facility that anyone ever wanted to use was the town tennis and town pool, and that wasn't available before the decision or after.

So be happy. The villages have their recreation programs. Unincorporated will lose most of theirs because they depend on having others use their parks. When a team hosts another team, and that other team is from another town, they won't be able to have such games because the other team won't be allowed to play in town parks. If you can't have a little league because you don't have enough kids from unincorporated and non-residents are not allowed to join because they can't use the parks you will do without a little league.

Are you happy? I guess you are because you think you are sticking it to the villages. You are wrong. You are sticking it to yourself.

Isn't it fun to spenf your life hating the villages.; 2/29/2008 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear anon at 8:32,

That is not how rec priviledges are commonly allocated. If Greenbugh plays Ardsley they alternate fields. So stop trying to scare us. The problem is some of the villages dont have enought fields. Too bad -- build some. We are not as stupid as you think we are and are not going to scare.; 2/29/2008 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear anon at 8:32

Isnt is fun when you cant go on mooching off of the TOV people?; 2/29/2008 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear 9:03,

If you don't think Bernstein put you in a bind, you sure are stupid! That is why your President of the Village Officials is coming hat in hand to Greenburgh. He is pleading to get things back to where they were before Bob came along and completely outsmarted all involved.; 2/29/2008 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear 9:07,

Edgemonters don't need to mooch off of anyone. Would you like to compare the average salary of an Edgemonter versus a Villager?? Would you like to compare the quality of school districts? It is the Villagers who mooch off of us. We contribute more tax dollars to the Town than anyone.

The bottom line is, if you were more successful, you would live in Edgemont. You simply can't afford it so you have a major case of "little Man syndrome." Get over it before it eats you up.; 2/29/2008 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: I appreciate the range of sentiments expressed here. The Villages are not coming hat in hand to the Town, and that is not the intent of our backing a change to Finneran. The Town can charge anything they wish for services. The detailed argument about capitalized costs misses the point: what we seek is to provide the Town with that flexibility so that recreation programs can cover non-unincorporated residents and tennis bubbles can get built. Those are all win-win situations, and that sort of flexibility is good for all of us. Unincorporated can enjoy the additional income, Villagers can enjoy the services. But it isn't something we would tear the town apart over.

Park access really is a very small issue, and not one of any major concern to most Village residents. Most people use parks near them, and I can't say as Trustee that any Hastings resident has come to me asking for access to Greenburgh parks. They're perfectly nice, but why go there when there are parks here? You want to shut us out? OK.

(I should add that all of the parks in our Village of Hastings are open to everyone - even though we pay for them. The marginal cost of an outside resident using the park is essentially zero, and the cost of excluding people is simply not worth it. Besides, its the neighborly thing to do. Come on down to MacEaphron park on a Sunday in the summer. It's delightful and you can enjoy a drink at Harvest on the patio while your kids play on the playground. It's as good as it gets and you're welcome.)

Flexibility is good for everyone. That flexibility has to be implemented sensibly, and fairly. We aren't seeking any advantage here.

Finally, a note about tone. I disagree with one rude poster, the ever popular Mr. Anonymous at 4:47, who said that suddenly we are Mr. Nice Guys after not operating with good will on Taxter Road. I should remind Mr. Anonymous that the Villages did not sue the Town over Taxter Ridge, an unincorporated resident did. We happened to have won that case on appeal, which upheld the law exactly as we understood it. That's hardly ill will. That's defending one's rights and having the law interpreted correctly. Throughout the entire ordeal, I have ever been anything other than open or civil to anyone on this topic. Things were fine before the Taxter Ridge case and they can be fine again. We have given no one cause for anyone to believe anything other than our intentions are simply to return to a status quo that worked wonderfully for a hundred years. We're friends and neighbors here. There is no civil war.

And by the way, this "anonymous" stuff bothers me. Come on, colleagues. Come out of the darkness and attach your name to your words. I'm not embarassed to do so. Why should you be?; 2/29/2008 10:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

People generally dont identify themselves when they dont support Feiner's position as he is vindicative. You say things were fine before the Bernstein case. They were not from my, TOV, perspective. We TOVs are tired of subsidizing Village residents. We dont think we should be taxed for facilities open Town-wide.; 2/29/2008 11:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

I'm not certain that "the system" has you say has been working for 100 years. I thought the Finnerman law came in sometime around the 60s. In any event, the Town spending money on things like Taxter Ridge, which were of dubious general value, has excaberated the situation. Where were you when Taxter Ridge was acquired? Did you council Paul that it might be wasteful? Or did it not matter, as you wouldnt have to pay for it?; 2/29/2008 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Paul,
Im hope you and the Town board pass a resolution for outsiders to use our Parks, after being declared ok by the Town board,it is a very good source of income, to help keep cost down.; 3/01/2008 1:16 AM
Anonymous said...: As a resident of unincorporated Greenburgh, I am disgusted by the lack of civility on both sides of the aisle.

By personally attacking and chastising Mr. Swiderski or Mr. Feiner (or even Mr. Bernstein, for that matter), calling each other names, responding to someone's opinion in a condescedning manner, and hiding behind the "Anonymous said" moniker, we are solving n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

This constant bickering and cheap shots serve absolutely no purpose.

I also suggest that if someone is going to weigh in on any given topic, he or she should take the time to educate themselves on the facts first.

I'm all for open government, and I applaud the Town Board's recent efforts in that regard.

I also applaud Mr. Swiderski for "extending the olive branch." I, for one, hold no animosity towards the Villages and/or their representatives.

For the record, I agree with the sentiment of the last blogger, John Malone, who always has the testicular fortitude to put his name above his comments: the bottom line, in my opinion, is that by permitting the Village residents to use the parks and participate in various programs, we are enabling ourselves to keep those parks and programs running and reducing the potential costs to unincorporated residents.

Thank you for your time.; 3/01/2008 1:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Lee,

It seems to me that the attacks on Mr. Bernstein and Ms. Peyser have ben much more vicious than the discussion of points with Mr. Swiderski.

I would also like to remind everyone that Mr. Bernstien, and other other representatives of unincoporated Greenburgh, had been willing to participate in mediation on the Parks matter. I dont think it takes a Karnac to figure out that the courts were going to say either the Town entire should pay for facilities or only the unincorporated Town should have usage. Instead, the VOC refused to participate and demanded the Town not participate. Who is coming in now?

Part of the problem as I see it is that Villages are not homogeneous. Some Villages do have their own parks, which they restrict to their own residents, some do not. Some desperately want to use Town facilities, some do not.

While Mr. Swiderski is more polite than many of Mr. Feiner's supporters (which is not a difficult standard to meet), by saying that he wants the past practices to continue (i.e., use of Town facilities by Village residents, even with a fee), he comes to the table asking for concessions on behalf of the TOV, without offering anything. I think the time has come for a more global solution, whether it involves all parts of the Town becoming Villages, or some alternative. Until the VOC realize that continueation of the past discriminatory and unfair practices is not an option, any solution, other than that mandated by the courts, remains in the far distance.; 3/01/2008 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Paul you did Gold a big favor in giving him a big back yard,and the rest of the town a no more development plan ,can you see what a can of worms this opened.
The finnerman law was great to defeat Bernsteins law suit,and it should stand as is with no amenedings made.
If the courts said that it was to be upheld for one reason it should be honored for all reasons.; 3/01/2008 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: 7:14 is on to something. The villages and unincorporated should protest infront of Danny Gold's house. He started the whole Taxter Ridge mess and it is rumored that he also received $100,000 from the land trust.; 3/01/2008 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Swiderski-

Thank you for your excellent remarks and contributing some welcome sanity to this blog and the town as a whole. Obviously you represent, quite well, the vast majority of decent and well-meaning folks who make up Greenburgh. These people, like yourself, have other lives, and are busy managing those lives in the real world.

Your points about the parks are well-taken and right on the money. Your views on local use of the parks and the need for the tennis bubble are accurate.

This whole issue of who uses the parks and pays for them is indeed marginal. I have pointed out many times in the Town Board chambers and on this blog that these are faux issues created and sustained by a tiny minority of power wannabees. The chief architect of this campaign to "divide and conquer" Greenburgh is Mr. Robert Bernstein, who initiated this suit to help actuate that end. He has stated the same in no uncertain words. His actions regarding Dromore Road, his declared intention to marginalize the influence of the Supervisor by reducing the unincorporated area, his desire to create a village of Edgemont, no matter what the cost or his various suits and threats of litigation are ample evidence of his goals.

The so-called conflict between the Villages and the Town, as a whole, has been exaggerated and exacerbated by this willful group that oppose Supervisor Feiner's very being and is fed and sustained by Mr. Bernstein's legal gymnastics.

There are problems in Greenburgh, no doubt. Its structure is unique, and like many other cities, towns and villages in Westchester it is wrestling with the high built-in and mandated costs of the operation of its municipal government and its educational apparatus. These costs are being passed on to the average tax-payer as revenues from the sales tax, and commercial property taxes decline. These declines are as a result of our economic slowdown caused by high oil prices, the ongoing collapse of the dollar, weak markets, and the never-ending war in Iraq. They affect every community, not Greenburgh alone.

We need more sane views from people like yourself to encourage others to speak out on these issues. By more of us speaking out, we will marginalize this cast of characters who have a made a hobby out creating a circus in front of the Board and obfuscating our real needs.

Of course this is not an effort to stultify needed criticism and public input. People like Hal Samis have devoted a great deal of time and energy to issues like the library construction. His efforts have opened the eyes of many who blindly went along with anti-Feiner mob who pushed this boondoggle on the public, as a way to embarrass and defeat the Supervisor, in 2005.

Richard J. Garfunkel; 3/01/2008 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Living in unincorporated Greenburgh, we have no representation at the local level. Our neighborohood civic leaders are trashed by Paul and his supporters. The town concil is openly favoring the villages. The courts appear our only redress.

Mr. Sidowski says he wants the villages to pay a "fair" amount, but then dismisses any discussion of capital costs to enter into that. That belies his purported fairness.

A truly fair approach must be forth in any negotation, or the courts will be the decision makers.; 3/01/2008 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Mr. Swidorski is in the majority. The village representatives are in the majority. If the Parks and Rec are a small issue, Mr. Garfunckle, the answer is just to charge the costs to the Town entire. I am certain the TOV residents will support an amendment to the Finnerman law to allow all Town residents access to parks if the costs are charged townwide.; 3/01/2008 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Frank Lee makes the good and obvious point that if someone is going to weigh in on any given topic, he or she should take the time to educate themselves on the facts first. The next writer (Anonymous 7:02) then fails that standard. And that highlights the problems that the town has been enduring.

He says that representatives of the unincorporated area were willing to participate in the "mediation" but that the VOC refused to do so. Totally wrong. The VOC did participate (and Peter Swiderski and I were two of the three VOC representatives). The problem was that the unincorpotared group, and Bob Bernstein especially, wanted to "mediate" the parks and recreation issue only (that is, to mediate the Finneran Law out of existence) and the VOC wanted to also discuss the other issues involving A/B budget matters which had been identified in the SCOBA Report. When the mediator agreed and asked for some financial measurement of these issues the unincorporated group refused and Bernstein went to the press and announced that the mediation was over. I supppose, given the attitudes, that it was really over before it began, but to say what Anonymous 7:02 says shows either lack of knowledge or the kind of animus that has so pervaded the discussion these past several years.

He then says that "some villages have their own parks, which they restrict to their own residents, some do not." First, I believe that all the villages have their own parks. Second, he repeats the canard that began with Bob Bernstein's untrue statement in his court papers that the villages restrict their parks to their own residents. That is false. There are some parks that are restricted but every village has parks that are open to all. Indeed, in Hastings every single park is open to all, as is generally the case worldwide. In every other village there are open parks and the momentum is to open them all, with no discussion of charging people for entering the parks.

Nobody, and certainly not Mr. Swiderski, is demanding anything. He did not say that he wants "the past practices to continue (i.e., use of Town facilities by Village residents, even with a fee)." He is saying that he wants to go back to the pre-litigation period when we behaved like neighbors rather than adversaries.

7:02 says that Mr. Swiderski "comes to the table asking for concessions on behalf of the TOV, without offering anything." That is an inaccurate statement, seemingly born of the anger that some have generated in the town. Mr. Swiderski suggested (as did I in another setting) that it would be beneficial for the unincorporated area to deal with the consequences of the Taxter Ridge reversal by asking for an amendment to the Finneran Law to remove the handcuffs that the decision put on the town, and that it might benefit the town if the Board continued to receive revenues by permitting non-residents to use facilities for a fee, as it has been doing for years. That is for the Town Board to think about. It is not something that is necessary for village residents, who are quite satisfied with the village facilities available to them in their villages (with the single exception of the expressed desire by one village to have acess to the pool in Veteran Park -- something which would add net revenue for the unincoeporated area). An amendment benefits the unincorporated area, and if the unincorporated area residents don't want it that is OK with the villages. We tend to think that the unincorporated area would be shooting itself in the foot if they don't do something to overcome the effect of the court decision.

By the way, 7:02 is quite right when ha says, quite colorfully, that it wouldn't take "a Karnac to figure out that the courts were going to say either the Town entire should pay for facilities or only the unincorporated Town should have usage." Indeed, it should have been obvious to anyone who read the statute and its legislative file to know that it would come out the way it did, which raises the question as to why this sad imbroglio was started. The acrimony that the litigation caused was unfortunate and unnecessary. There were so many better ways to deal with the concerns that unincorporated area residents had. I hope that the ill feelings will subside, and I subscribe to Mr. Swiderski's urging that we become neighbors again and talk about things rather than to argue and indulge in name-calling and character-assassination.; 3/01/2008 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Rosenberg,

It is not the court decision that would restrict useage by TOV people (such as bringing guests to the pool), it is Mr. Feiner's biased "interpretation", or should I say threat. If Mr. Feiner follows through with his threat with not allowing guests at Veteran pool, I darsae there will be yet another lawsuit, possibly with damages and/or a restraining order. In short Mr. Feiner is attempting to hold the TOV hostage to allow him the sole control of access to TOV parks.

While Villages may have some parks for which useage is not restricted, somewhat like Taxter Ridge is not restricted (heck, it cant even be found), many Village facilities are restricted to that Village's residents, such as the Dobbs Ferry pool, the Matheson park in Irvington.

If you truly think this is such a good deal for the TOV, put it to a vote by TOV only.

The Town has allowed non-residents to join Veterans, the clearest violation of the Finnerman law, as you interpret it. Yet you called that a "deminimis" issue. I respectfully submit that for Villages to call use of parks that they dont want to pay for deminimis is not their call.

As to items which you wanted negotiated, please itemize. My understanding is that the state office of the comptroller has agreed that the town accounting is correct. Why is it that anytime an budget/accounting issue is unfair to the TOV, but legal, you cite the law (like the allocation of mortgage recording tax), but if legal but you deem unfair to the Villages you want mediation. Maybe the answer is the courts should decide all allocation.

I do not see amending the Finnerman law as proposed in the TOV best interest. We have a reasonable allocation of cost method -- our tax system. I would be amnenable to a Village by Village decision on joining a Greenburgh Parks and Recreation district, which would include unincorporated Greenburgh and any Village which wanted to join.

I would like to stop the name calling, but apparently the Village reps trash our TOV reps any chance they get. When will that stop?; 3/01/2008 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: imagine, ella preisser (sp?) had the audacity to announce she doesnt read this blog. if she did, she might learn something about parks and civility.

ella and her ilk would rather shoot themselves in the foot than be seen agreeing with mr feiner. thats sad.

ella should take a page from mr feiner and spend some time with the voters who have elected him 9 times instead of the angry and divisive voices identifed by mr garfunkel and others.

amendment of the finneran law is crucial so greenburgh rec programs can survive. guess what, ella preisser admitted she barely knows where greenburgh parks are located and has probably never used the town's tennis and pool facilities.

i hope im not being viewed as mean spirited but residents of the town that deify ella p are misguided.

just because she takes the microphone doesnt mean she has anything constructive to say.

oen might notice she has been notoriously silent on the growing library fiasco. why, because mr feiner in retrospect wasright about the need for a project manager.

paul feiner has been, sometimes to a fault, an incredible advocate for the parks and recreation programs. if he says an amendment is needed, he is entitled to some deference on the issue.

altho it is a very tired cliche, an amendment would help the entire town achieve a "win-win."; 3/01/2008 9:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Anonymouss 11:57 and 7:02:

When I use the word "reasonable" cost, this is a code word NOT for "concession" but for "reasonable". If you want to exclude non-unincorporated residents from programs, set the cost at something unreasonable, and that will work just as well as banning them. Again, the Town's choice. If the objective is to have Villagers defray the cost of a program by encouraging them to join them, the price will be set at a reasonable level that attracts them. Capitalized costs can be included - I couldn't care a whit. That's not my point. My point is that Greenburgh should have the flexibility to do so, if they so wish. You don't want to? OK.

We aren't looking for concessions from the Town. The vast majority of Villagers aren't looking for anything, and NONE are looking for handouts. This provides the Town with flexibity, again, and no more.

Finally, regarding the pursuit of a settle solution. Not only did the Villages ATTEND the mediation for many sessions, but we were the only party that put an offer on the table on how to proceed. That offer was roundly rejected. And there was no counter-offer from the other side in response. The mediation, at that point, came to an end. In hindsight and in view of how the case came out, perhaps rejecting a way forward wasn't such a good idea for the other side. The Villages tried, and we tried sincerely and in good faith. And we are trying now, in good faith, to come up with a mechanism that provides flexibility to Greenburgh. We have no interest for handouts, concessions, freebies, anger, resentment, bile, mistrust. We like you guys. Really. We all live here too.

And we have no opinion on Taxter Ridge. Or anything else you do in unincorporated. It's not our business. We don't pay most of your taxes. We don't use most of your services. It would be presumptious and nosy for us to express opinions about how 95% of the money gets spent. We get value for the taxes we do pay. It's a very fair deal for both sides, and we have been and continue to be content with it. But we are not Unincorporated. We should absorb five percent of your energy and attention. The rest should focus on your backyard. We're happy with that.; 3/01/2008 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: anon 8:22 am

"Our neighborhood leaders are being trashed by Paul and his supporters!" Do you mean fighting back? Do you mean answering the pomposity of Ella P, the grand doyenne of civic affairs. Do you mean Ed Krauss, self-centered, self-important crackpot? Do you mean Francis Sheehan, the tool of Bass, berger, and Brodsky? Do you mean Lorrin Brown and Thelma Washington the brain-dead twins? Do you mean McNally, Bernstein and O'Shea, the Edgemont troika? You mean Pat Weems and Carol Wilke, who have no clue? Just who do you really mean?

What grand ideas have these wondrous souls brought to the forefront of the public consciousness?

I see no evidence of Feiner trashing anyone! I see no evidence of anyone indulging in character assassination. I see a new Board having the guts to stand up and confront baseless, demagogic accusations. I see a Board fed up with that divide and conquer tactics that has intimidated Greenburgh for years. I see Board confronting Sheehan's lies, half-truths and insincerity. I see Sheehan gone in the next election!; 3/01/2008 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: I see a board that only wants to help the Villages, and when the courts raise issues, they want the law changed so that the villagers can use facilities at a "reasonable" cost (which apparently the definition of reasonable would be set by the Town Council, which is elect by the Town entire, of which the Villagers are the majority, and would not likely include any capital cost).; 3/01/2008 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: The Villages’ interest in a modification to Finneran is to give the Town Board the flexibility to allow non-unincorporated residents access to facilities, parks and/or programs as needed.
Hmmmm....
I'm not sure how I feel about this "as needed" aspect. for example: it's a fact that parks & rec pays Edgemont Rec money to help operate their own day camp BUT the camp uses Veterans pool. This camp is only open to Edgemont residents. Will Ardsley pay Greenburgh parks & rec so that their various, open to only Ardsley residents, can use the pool or any other unincorporated facilities?

Do they currently do this? Does Ardsley swim team currently use Veterans pool?

I don't have a problem with incorporating the villages into our CURRENT programs but I do have a problem creating new programs, defined by either Village boarders or school districts, regardless of whether a particular group pays or not.

TOV residents have to pay for all facilities but yet cannot pick & choose to pay for only the ones that they use nor can they create their own programs (except Edgemont, of course. haha. another subject that does not get any air time here) restricting who gets to use or participate.

Creating more groups of those using our facilities instead of incorporating new users into current groups or programs limits the space & time that unincorporated residents get at certain facilities and unincorporated bears the brunt of the costs.

These are just some thoughts.; 3/01/2008 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Right now, Greenburgh Parks and REc has teams with many school based teams, including Irvington, Arsdsly -- presumbly the teams include TOV and village residents. Hartsdale Dads also sports teams. Children naturally associate with school mates. What 10:09 is leading toward, which I thinks makes sense is a rationalization of village/school boundaries, establishment of more villages as needed, and opening up facilities to all TOV and Villages, and payment by such.; 3/01/2008 10:16 AM
Anonymous said...: From anon 8:22 am

"Our neighborhood leaders are being trashed by Paul and his supporters!" Do you mean fighting back? Do you mean answering the pomposity of Ella P, the grand doyenne of civic affairs. Do you mean Ed Krauss, self-centered, self-important crackpot? Do you mean Francis Sheehan, the tool of Bass, berger, and Brodsky? Do you mean Lorrin Brown and Thelma Washington the brain-dead twins? Do you mean McNally, Bernstein and O'Shea, the Edgemont troika? You mean Pat Weems and Carol Wilke, who have no clue? Just who do you really mean?

Do you think this approach will lead to openminded negotation?; 3/01/2008 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Since it is said that Gold received $100,000 dollars for the Taxter Rd deal what else was done underhanded.
This should be investigated thouroughly,since he got a 200 hundred acre back yard plus all that money to boot.
Since the state,county and Greenburgh purchased this land in patnership it should be checked out by the Attorney General of New York.
Maybe the Albany officers should rent a room in Greenburgh to go over all the wrong doings that have taken place over the years.; 3/01/2008 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: There is no "Hartsdale Dads Club" It is Greenburgh Dad's Club and rightfully, coaches are prohibited from choosing Hartsdale only children on their teams. Regardless, 90% of Hartsdale students do not attend Greenburgh Central yet there is no issue in Hartsdale kids to play as a Town of Greenburgh team. It's a Town team, supported by Town services. Not school districts.; 3/01/2008 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you for the open letter to the residents of the unincorporated
areas but I think we know what the law states and no changes should be made.
Garfunkel you said Bernstein lost
I beg to differ he won %100 percent.
He showed each and everyone here and throughout the country"yes we can fight back".
I think at this point we must say that the battle has just begun.; 3/01/2008 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: The posting at 9:39 tells all there needs to be told as to why the town has been relegated to a permanent state of war and dysfunction. The writer writes fiction, brought on by the very name-calling and character-assassination that I have deplored. For sure there is no reality to his message.

He says that it is not the court decision that would restrict the use of non-residents, like guests, to unincorporated facilities, but rather the Supervisor’s “interpretation” and his “threats.” He should read the decision. He should also know that the Town Attorney (whose office studied that decision throughly) gave that opinion publicly at the last Town Board work session. The writer makes the same mistake that so many other bloggers make -- that is, they regard as legal or illegal that which they like or dislike. That is why they were so shocked at the entirely predictable court decision. Sadly for the blogger, the Supervisor is correct in his concerns. The blogger should not be throwing around words like “restraining order” when he obviously knows little about either the facts or the law.

I would like him to tell me where I have said (as he claims) that it is a de minimis issue for the town to have allowed non-residents to join Veteran park. I don’t believe that I ever said anything like that because I don’t think that is the case.

I don’t know where he got that stuff in the paragraph regarding the State Comptroller’s saying that accounting was correct and that made-up stuff about the recording tax. It surely wasn’t from me.

If he doesn’t want the Finneran Law to be amended, and the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh feels the same way, then that is perfectly OK. If he actually paid attention to what I have said, instead of inventing things that I did not say, he would know that I have said repeatedly that the villages like the Finneran Law as it is and require no change. The suggestions that Mr. Swiderski and I have made are to help unincorporated Greenburgh solve its problems, not to get something for nothing, or to get anything at all for that matter. If it makes him happier being limited by the law than allowing for the possibility that the Town Board may seek to enhance its revenues by allowing village residents some limited access to town facilities, then let him be happy.

And finally, he should stop that nonsensical crap that “Village reps trash our TOV reps any chance they get.” No village representative, and especially Mr. Swiderski, has trashed the TOV. It seems fairly obvious that he takes a statement of facts, and good-faith suggestions, as trashing. So, as I said, we have a permanent war and dysfunction. But the fault is at his end, not at our end.; 3/01/2008 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: I dont see what the issues are. Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Swiderski say the villages like the law the way it is. The TOV people dont want it amended. So what't the issue. If Paul thinks the TOV wants it amended, put it to a TOV referendum.; 3/01/2008 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: 10:25. You are correct. There are school teams and there are town/village teams. Most kids play on both if they can. The lines get blurred when it suits a group.

Your reference to Edgemont is a good example. They have school teams and then play as "Edgemont" in the Greenburgh Dads Club. This should not be. They defend it by saying they have their own Rec Department and as such, they should not play for Greenburgh. 10:09 correctly points out that Greenburgh P&R's gives money to Edgemont Recreation. Taking one step further, Edgemont rec makes donations to Scarsdale Teen center. Edgemont Rec & Scarsdale Teen Center are not available to Unincorporated TOG children.

Now, despite the lack of interest in this little tidbit of information in the past, I suspect given this blog topic, people will be looking at this and other such friendly, neighborly type joint ventures, in the future.; 3/01/2008 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I think Mr. Swiderski and Mr. Rosenberg should ask for the following comments to stop

anon 8:22 am

"Our neighborhood leaders are being trashed by Paul and his supporters!" Do you mean fighting back? Do you mean answering the pomposity of Ella P, the grand doyenne of civic affairs. Do you mean Ed Krauss, self-centered, self-important crackpot? Do you mean Francis Sheehan, the tool of Bass, berger, and Brodsky? Do you mean Lorrin Brown and Thelma Washington the brain-dead twins? Do you mean McNally, Bernstein and O'Shea, the Edgemont troika? You mean Pat Weems and Carol Wilke, who have no clue? Just who do you really mean?; 3/01/2008 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: 10:51, many school based teams, including Irvington and Ardsly participate in Greenburgh rec? Waht about them?; 3/01/2008 10:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes they too play as Village teams in the league. Not as school teams. Does Greenburgh Rec pay the villages to offset their rec department costs? I doubt it.; 3/01/2008 11:08 AM
ed krauss said...: Mr. Garfunkel your altiloquence has no boundry. No matter what you say, and it's always long winded and pseudo- didactic, it always is in defense of Paul Feiner. Paul Feiner is the "angel" and Bob Bernstein is the "devil". I'm certainly not here to defend Bob, because he can do that all by himself. Nor am I here to attack Paul. It's you and your pompous ways that offend me. You've been living in Greenburgh for fewer than 10- years and yet are an expert on all-things- Greenburgh, as well a the rest of the known world.
How do you know what motivated Bernstein? Are you a mind reader? No not even you are arrogent enough to claim clairvoyance.

I have publically taken Paul to task, individually and not as part of an organized group since well before you moved to this town. I voiced my opinions when I felt he did somehing wrong...and Lord knows he did many things wrong.

You live in the unincorporated part of town. Therefore if Bernstein's law suit had prevailed, you along with 45,000 or so TOV residents would hav benefitted by having significantly lower taxes because the park and rec as well as the ted Young Community Center budget line would have been spread over nearly twice as many people.Do you mean to tell us you would not be happy paying less taxes? So what do you find wrong-other than your "Conspiracy Theory- with his attempt to have the "those who use it, pay for it" conviction codified?

Why if you obviously have ZERO knowledge-which is evident in much of your protracted diatribes-do you annoint Bernstein as the "leader" of the Edgemont-to-Village movement, when he was but one of many who voluteered their time and effort to, STUDY WHETHER IT MADE SENSE FOR EDGEMONT TO BECOME A VILLAGE...some of whom had no opinion either way? While I'm at it, if Edgemont opted for becoming a village, why is Bernstein the the cause of the "potential" disintegration of the unincorporated? And, if they optd to become a village would the entire community, in your jaundiced view, be wrong?

Overlooking flaws in search of bipartisanship is a flaw in itself.

Complimenting those, and only those, who share Paul Feiner's opinion on an issue, and deifying those who are opposed, makes your opinion on the subject barnyard bovine byproduct worthy, as, again, is one of your innate attributes.

Complimenting Hal for his work on the Library Construction abortion is worthy of mention. However, Bob Reninger and I have put in time (not nearly as much as Hal) delving into the hidden truths that thathave and continue to be hidden from the Board. But I am unworthy of you equal or near equal time as Hal...which is understandable given our warm relationship. But Bob Reninger, what did he do to offend your sensibilities?

I told Paul that making demands on the facts about the Library constrution will not be thought of as being against the Library and in fact an asset if dollars are save.I told the Board th same thing. It remais to be seen what they will do.

Nevertheless,when I think Paul does something right I don't go mute, something that you are incapable of doing.

Peter Swiderski's letter has brought pros and cons to the table, without much rancor. Bur it is still just venting. Results are the only thing that counts.

Your BLACK and WHITE worlddoes not exist.And, I think, no scratch that, i am certain you give Paul a bad name who would be better served if you confined yourself to the voting booth or behind the scenes. You can't even use an an anonymous on this blog beccause third graders would figure out who is writing "the opinionated" blog.; 3/01/2008 11:55 AM
ed krauss said...: Please correct "deifying" to "vilifying" in my previous entry. Thank you.; 3/01/2008 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon at 11:08

You cant possibly think that the Irvington and Ardsley teams are soley comprised of Village residents (and if so, why are they playing on TOV parks). The Irvington and Ardsley School districts include many families who live in the TOV. Do you think those children just dont play at all? But apparently you think they deserve preferetial treatment over Edgemont kids? Are you related to Feiner?; 3/01/2008 12:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Again, if the villages dont see a need a need for amending Finnerman, and the only TOV reps I know dont see a need, lets let it drop. Certainly it should not be rushed through in a hurry.

Right now, Ardsley is pushing for Veteran memberships. Juettner has agreed to suppor this.

I dont think TOV property should be open to those who arent supporting it tax wise.; 3/01/2008 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: 11:08,
Huh?

Greenburgh Central studants play on Ardsley & Irvington teams?; 3/01/2008 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: No 12:32,

residents of the TOV play on the Irvington and Ardsely teams -- ergo these are not Village teams, they are school based teams. You either want school based teams or you dont. Or if you are Fiener, Villages are allowed school based teams, but no others.; 3/01/2008 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. 12:32, why dont you sign your kids up on the Ardsly or Irvington teams. If they are playing on TOV parks, you should have the right to.; 3/01/2008 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: WARNING: If this Danny Gold rumor continues making surprise visits, I shall divulge the source of the rumor -- and it won't be pretty.

Danny Gold, no friend of mine, did what people all over Town do under the cover of their civic associations and communities. He just did it BETTER. Do you think that if such a purchase were possible in Edgemont that residents would not be organizing in favor of purchase or arguing against the participation of the County and the State or the Federal government -- even mideastern money -- to reduce the tax burden? I was vehemently opposed to the Taxter purchase so I have my bonafides in place and I have done my share to point out the limited benefit to those beyond a stone's throw of the site.

But the originator of the rumor knows that there is absolutely no way to prove the allegation, hence it is called a rumor -- and this too becomes part of the expanding catalogue of blog assassinations from anonymous persons.

I find myself conflicted when I am caught between persons, all of whom I respect, even for their differing signed opinions, and try to steer clear of their personal battles -- each has valid points while each persist with some flawed assumptions -- but each deserves their turn at the blog soapbox without their baggage becoming the issue.

However, anyone who attaches their name to their comments deserves to be read or heard. For the most part, they express their opinions and seldom do incorrect facts remain uncontested on this blog.

What is written here or read here is not like the tag line, "what happens in Vegas..." We live in a small pond and are bound to meet on a checkout line somewhere, Central Avenue or higher up whereas anonymous bloggers are all headed straight down.

But, enough of these unprovable or malicious attacks without either cause or basis.

Finally, what I don't get is how presumed bright persons can write that the downsides of Finneran, like not allowing guests or others is not possible because other communities allow guests or visiting teams.

I've stayed out of these discussions for one reason: only Greenburgh has a Finneran Law and this law got toughened by the recent decision. If there are other communities governed by the Finneran Law, perhaps we need to look at how they treat guests and visiting sports teams.

But where are they? If they exist, I'm all for enacting a Marshall Plan and lend-leasing Bernstein so that they too can learn "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".; 3/01/2008 1:09 PM
Anonymous said...: ...krauss you are the epitome of the triple enchilada: you look like a jerk, you sound like a jerk, and you are a jerk...!

...by the way, someone else!; 3/01/2008 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Hal I have said that you have ben honest and up front with all that you say.
I would like for you to explain the Gold situation.
This has been said for quite some time and I have never heard Gold deny it.
I'm waiting///////////; 3/01/2008 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: The situation concerning Gold has come up a few times since the purchase of Taxter rd. property.
Neither he or the supervisor have made any comment on the blod for or against the so called rumor.; 3/01/2008 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: On this blog if you deny a lie it only leads to more lies and attacks.

I don't know this Danny Gold, but if he is half as smart as his critics say then he is wise to say nothing.; 3/01/2008 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Hal,

As well you know, all the Finnerman law does is put unincorporated Greenburgh as if it were its own municipality. Most municaplities allow guests, etc. As well you know. Your supporting the supervisor in his attempts at extortion are duly noted.; 3/01/2008 1:28 PM
Anonymous said...: I think if Fiener etc care about TOV, they should push for a clarification of the Finnerman legislation that it allows resident members to have guests, on a limited basis, and teams to have home and away games. I think this legislation would be supported. And if the Villages doent want a limited rule, why not.; 3/01/2008 1:30 PM
Anonymous said...: This is just spitefullnes on Feiners part to say no guests. If he doesnt get his way, I guess he will just drain the pool. He doesnt care.; 3/01/2008 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: The rumor, originating in Edgemont, regarding Danny Gold is that he was pushing for the purchase of Taxter Ridge, not only because of the enormous and obvious benefit to East Irvington property owners for the usual reasons (keep school capacity/taxes down, traffic, keep development away and, the higher resale price to those whose property abutted parkland) but for an additional benefit not available to his neighbors.

Those who have spread the rumor allege that the real estate broker, the name heavy "Trust For Public Land" paid a substantial "fee" or "commission" or "retainer" to Mr. Gold for his efforts in consummating the sale.

The rumored amount was stated as $100,000.

What is irksome (more so to Mr. Gold who has been slimed by the anonymous paintbrush) is that those who are party to this story continue to do so knowing that it is near impossible to be either confirmed or denied. The Trust for Public Land operates under the laws concerning non-profits and their books are not FOILable by mere mortals. The Trust for Public Land does earn fees for its work and they perorm functions that are paid for by the seller and do so in the same manner that licensed Real Estate Brokers operate.

Still, it is a rumor that does not go away and ususally emerges when there is some need to invoke the Feiner name in doing dastardly deeds.

If Mr. Gold and Mr. Feiner were otherwise in the business of denying rumors, they would be foolish to do so again. Thus when you see anonymous bloggers seizing the opportunity to make hay out of not denying the rumor, (I don't know about this) you are only seeing more of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" faulty logic applied by those eager to destroy.

Perhaps Finneran has also exempted Greenburgh from "innocent until proven guilty".

And, as for 1:28, "as you well know" of ten partnered with "to be honest" are two phrases which should be found along with the "anonymous" moniker, in the bottom of the trash, waiting for Regula to pick it up.

In the meanwhile both 1:28 and its doppelganger nearby at 1:30 need to spend some time reading the Finneran law. I am not familiar with the FinnerMan so perhaps that one has some bearing.; 3/01/2008 4:02 PM
ed krauss said...: To 1:18 PM:
Your prose is pathetic. Your pusillanimity,
profound. And if "...by the way, someone else!" you mean you're not Richard Garfunkel, you needn't have said it. Richard writes much too well to have written (and poorly punctuated) the piece of dreck you pass off as writing.; 3/01/2008 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Lets get back to the topic of this thread,

If Paul beleives there is any risk of non-TOV people being regarded as using the TOV parks and recreation, he should request that the State pass legislation CLARIFYING Finnerman, stating that TOVs having non-TOV guests, on a limited basis, TOV teams playing an equal mix of home and away meets, and TOV sponsering parites at times not detrimental to the operation of the facilities, such guests to be any non-resident of the TOV.; 3/01/2008 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: end of last sentence,

shall be regarded as use by TOV residents.; 3/01/2008 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Hal,

If Danny Gold got paid $100,000 for "services" rendered for the purchase of Taxter, Feiner might be in a pickle. Didn't Danny Gold serve as a Deputy Supervisor under Feiner? If Feiner knew that Danny Gold was involved with the land trust and pushed for the purchase anyway, Feiner might be guilty of financially rewarding a political ally.

A full investigation is warranted in order to determine guilt or innocence.

Hal, do you have any suggestions on how such an investigation can begin? Whoever does it must have subpoena power.; 3/01/2008 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Anonymouses 1:30 and 4:34:

You ask thoughtful questions regarding why not just change Finneran to include guests. (In fact, if you're asking good questions, come out of the shadows and sign your name - I would be pleased to know with whom I am talking here).

I can't speak for the entire VOC because this calrification has only been discussed by a few, but I think the VOC would all agree on my point here, and you will understand why when I explain. It's really pretty simple. The proposed modification to Finneran should be broad enough to give the Town flexibility to admit non-unincorporated guests so that programs that involve, say, children from a Village can continue, and so the tennis bubble can get built, and other programs and facilities accommodated. If you construct the modification to Finneran too narrowly, it's barely worth making the change. Look, every Village is going to have to put this on its docket, have their individual attornies approve it, review it, and vote on it. That's a major hassle across six Villages. It's only really worth doing if there are town-wide benefits AND if we aren't going to be returning in two years to further modify it. That is why we have a problem with a "laundry list" approach to a modification that would enumerate the "allowed" exception facilities to Finneran. It may be completely applicable this year, and then next year, boom, the Town will decide t to build another facility that might draw Village residents. What? We would have to go back and add to the enumerated Finneran modification AGAIN? That's bad public policy and government and no Village is going to be eager to approve a modification to a law that is likely to require changes in the near future. And our state senators and assembleymen would have a right to question our poor sense. That's not stubborness on the Village's part: that's just common sense.

Look, we're as busy as you are, and we're all volunteers (or close to it) as mayors and trustees. It makes no sense to put work on our plates that is poorly formed and will requires future modification. That's the genesis of why the Villages will only support a modification that makes longer-term sense.

Another blogger asks me to disown the comments made by someone attacking Ella P. and Ed Krauss. That angry person is none of my business and his bile aimed at Ed Krauss is between him and Ed or Ella or whomever. Maybe if you all simultaneously stopped reacting and treating each other this way for like a week, the silence would be deafening and good things would begin to evolve. I endorse none of that nonsense, but it is not my job to refute it. Only those sorry peolpe can take back their own words. As far as I am concerned, it is unacceptable out of anyone operating in good faith, aimed at anyone.

Thank you, again, for the many comments on this thread. I have appreciated the conversation. I urge people to come out of the darkness and begin to ignore those who hide behind "anonymous". The first thing that happens is that you take responsibility for your words. The second thing that happens is that it humanizes this conversation. The third thing that happens is that it cranks down the temperature, because you begin to associate who is having a conversation and who is raging at the monitor in the darkness in his pajamas, spitting bile. I would argue it is better to have conversations with people that you know by name than spitting fights in the dark.

Respectfully looking forward to hearing from you.; 3/01/2008 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: As I see it, the Villages will only accept a modification that allows them usage. The Town Council will not have the TOV interests at heart. Nuf said.; 3/01/2008 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: The TOV people will put forth their recommendations to state officials, and the Villages can choose to put forth their recommendations or not.; 3/01/2008 7:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Excuse me, my error, TOV people will request clarification, not modification. The villages may or may not request modification. But as they dont pay for the TOV facilities, I dont think their veiws matter much. Now, if they would like to to move Parks and REc to the A budget, then their views would matter.; 3/01/2008 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski.

Did you ever notice just how famous you are??? Street signs all over America are named after you; "ONE WAY!"; 3/01/2008 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Swiderski,

I am a resident of TOV and a mother, and I am not unsympathetic to your concern for the Village children. I strongly suggest if you really want to help them you go back to the drawing board and see if you can think of an approach that will be fair to both the Villages and the TOV.; 3/01/2008 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Anonymous TOV mom -

I am missing something here. I am not proposing unrestricted, free access to a park or program. I'm not pleading for Village children. I'm offering up examples in explaining why this makes sense. I am saying that the Town should have the freedom to set the terms for who visits what and for how much. If the town wants to build a tennis bubble and charge unincorporated people $400 a year and Villagers $600 (or whatever you want to charge), that's fine with me. I couldn't care a whit. And if the Town lands up making a lot of money from that, good for the town. This modification provides unincorporated Greenburgh with flexibility to do what Village governments can do: open (or not open) a facility or program to anyone for any price. How this is a concession to the Villages is lost on me. How this is a give-away to the Villages is lost on me. How this is me wanting it "one way", as clever anmonymous poster at 7:53 says, is lost on me. You want your flexibility limited by Finneran, well, OK. Some Villagers will be saddened. Most won't mind. But unincorporated will lose the freedom to have what they might otherwise not.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just not following the line of reasoning here. Someone, please help me out. How is handing your own Town Board the freedom to decide if it makes sense to create a new facility open to all of the Town a bad thing? That freedom doesn't even need to be exercised often. Keep your parks closed if it makes you happy. But explain to me how the option to be able to make more money, share expenses, build new facilities is a bad thing. Please. Someone reasonable who can muster a logical argument. Lay it out for me without laying into me. I just want to make sure I am not missing a valid point somewhere.; 3/01/2008 8:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

This has been said before, but if you want to share costs, then parks and rec belongs in the A budget. A nominmal fee for useage isnt sharing. It just isnt fair.

And if the useage doesnt matter to most Villagers, then, as you said with respect to Taxter Ridge, you should just stay out of the way. Your continued harping makes me suspect that some Villagers ARE concerned about obtaining use of TOV facilities. It is clear many Ardsley people want use of Veterans.; 3/01/2008 9:06 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem is that Paul and the Council would only exercise this "freedom" as you call it, to help the Village residents. He doesnt care about the TOV. At a minimum, he should at least demand civil treatment of our civic leaders.; 3/01/2008 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

Why dont you just tell Dobbs Ferry and Irvington that they should allow use of their restricted parks to other villages for a "reasonable' fee?; 3/01/2008 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski, you are wasting your time. You don't know unincorporated Greenburgh. If you did, you would know that many people, at least those who write to this blog, have little sense of logic. They are motivated by an anger that has been fed by years of demagoguery.

They are not capable of understanding that it is we, the residents of unincorporated Greenburgh, who need to amend the Finneran Law if we are not to lose important quality of life services, like our recreation program. They would rather have league programs and things like the golf program fail for lack of enough people rather than have them succeed by inviting non-residents in to fill out these programs. They would rather lose an important revenue producer like the tennis bubble, than tone down their anti-village rhetoric. They think that they are teaching the villages a lesson when they are really destroying their own community. They think that village reesidents care. They don't realize that you and the VOC are doing incorporated Greenburgh a big favot by willing to agree to a Finneran Law amendment when you can easily block it. They have a need to see your offer to help as some devious way of screwing them. In short, you will not get sensible letters from them.

So leave it be. The Town Board will have to make its decision. Hopefully the Town Board will have the sense not to listen to these people whose anger at the fact that they lost their case has made them irrational.

But I thank you for trying to help us.; 3/01/2008 11:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

The last plan I saw for the bubble was that village and TOV residents would be charged the same. That was the deal the Town negotiated. No one should be surprised that the price would be the same.; 3/01/2008 11:41 PM
Anonymous said...: The decision will be up to the courts and/or the state legislature. Thank god.; 3/01/2008 11:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe a tennis bubble makes sense, maybe it doesnt; but it sure doesnt make sense to let the Town Council have total leeway on letting villagers use TOV facilities.; 3/02/2008 12:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear 6:18,

Here's another rumor that I heard. Maybe we should bundle all of these rumors together going forward.

Perhaps we can learn how to pursue rumors better if we follow the steps being laid out by the Dromore developer whose court case shall lead to a closer examination into whether Francis Sheehan, Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes and Diane Juettner attended a secret meeting which wasn't open to the public or the Town Supervisor.

Say, wasn't Michelle McNally Bob Bernstein's predecessor as head of the Edgemont Community Council and since the ECC never authorized either of them to negotiate on their behalf for the purchase of the Dromore property, a full investigation is warranted to determine their guilt or innocence.

If Bernstein were buying the property to develop, McNally might be in a pickel. If McNally knew that Bernstein was involved with investors and pushed to acquire the property, going so far as to draw up a contract of sale with Bernstein as the buyer, McNally might be guilty of selling out Edgemont's interest in acquiring the property for Bernstein's financial gain. And based upon the enormous profits to be gained, Bernstein and McNally. working in cahoots, could easily clear well more than, say $100,000 each.

Keep up the good work anonymous 6:18. You take the lead and I'll follow in your footsteps.; 3/02/2008 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Hal,

What crime would have been committed by either Bernstein or McNally??? Feiner on the other hand would be guilty of enriching a political crony. This at the very least would be a huge ethics violation. It would also end forever the power that Danny Gold exercises at Town Hall.; 3/02/2008 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: swiderski for town council!!

he seems to have silenced the angry bitter voices headed by the usual few who have never been elected to anything.; 3/02/2008 7:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

The problem is that the villages have 52% of the population and the unincorporated 48%. This fact is not lost on the politicians at Town Hall. When a dicey issue comes up, unincorporated will always be sold out to the vilages.

If we had to pay milions to create and maintain a facility, how is it fair that you villagers pay the same as us to use it? Or even double what we pay???

Look at how the Town rewards the village fire departments. Millions of dollars are given to them to provide fire service to the so-called fire protection districts. Why aren't the unincorporated paid fire districts asked to bid for these services? The unincorporated departments can respond MUCH quicker than the village departments, thus being in a much better position to save lives. The villages are staffed entirely by volunteers which means that the some volunteer firemen would have to make their way to the firehouse first in order to drive the fire apparatus to the emergency. Unincorporated Greenburgh is serviced by three paid fire departments with each firehouse having a crew a fireman there 24/7 able to respond with fire apparatus immediately. You villagers are being POLITICALLY & FINANCIALLY REWARDED and in so doing, placing the lives of the residents of the fire protection districts in danger. These contracts should be bidded upon by everyone. Instead, the Town chooses to reward the villages.

The Town has illegally had in place the same type of reward system for our parks.; 3/02/2008 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Back to the Finnerman proposal,

Mr. Swiderski, even school children understand that principal that you can either go in on an purchase, and share it or not. Only bullies expect not to pay and have use. The TOVers are tired of being bullied. The Town Council can have all the meetings on this they want, but the TOVers see a link being taxed for something and having the right to use it.; 3/02/2008 7:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes Hal, you talk about a maybe and a hybothetical. I want to know about the 100,000 and Danny Gold. And did Feiner know about it.; 3/02/2008 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: As a resident of unicorporated Greenburgh, I think what we need immediately is a clarification of the Finnerman law, as to what constitutes use by residents (guests etc). Then we may need a permenant plan. Possibly the unincorporated areas should form villages. Then, withe everyone in a Village, this A/B haggling can stop.; 3/02/2008 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...: The Danny Gold/Feiner connection needs to be studied. We need an investigation where Danny Gold & Feiner can be placed under oath. We have a right to know if we paid millions for a "park" that no one can use so that one of Feiner's supporters could make a quick $100,000 and increase the value of his home at the same time.

Hal, why are you seemingly against getting the facts out in this case?

The Dromore Road facts will come out as a result of the Troy lawsuit. Why not have the same with Taxter??????; 3/02/2008 9:25 AM
Anonymous said...: It is dispiriting to read the many angry letters denouncing the very idea of an amendment to Finneran. The primary emotion of these writers is to seek out and achieve what is bad for the villages rather than what is good for the town.

In fact, they are on a mission impossible. If nothing is done then the villages don’t lose anything but the unincorporated area loses much.

It isn’t the villages who have asked to use the town’s parks. It is the Recreation Commissioner who has invited non-residents in (including residents of Yonkers and White Plains). He gives unincorporated residents priority, but if there is not enough of them then he has to fill out the slots by inviting non-residents rather than drop the programs. So it is good for the unincorporated area to permit non-residents in, and has little if any significance to the villages.

If the Recreation Commissioner runs programs whereby teams of different municipalities play teams from Greenburgh and these programs have to stop because the other teams are non-residents and cannot play in town parks, who suffers? Not the villages. Again, it is the unincorporated area.

It is the unincorporated area which receives revenues from allowing non-residents into town programs, not the villages. So who do you think is punished if the revenue stream stops? The unincorporated area, not the villages.

It is a town park and the B budget that benefit from the tennis bubble, not any village or the A budget. So who is it good for? The answer is obvious – the unincorporated area.

Yet all I seem to read are “I’ll cut off my nose to spite my face” letters. It is the collective nose of unincorporated area residents, not the noses of villagers.

It would be so much healthier if these writers focused on what is good for them (which is a lot) rather than what is bad for the villages (which is practically nothing). They mistake the efforts of village representatives to help the unincorporated area as efforts to gain something for the villages. They shouldn’t. In this case, the unincorporated area needs all the help it can get.; 3/02/2008 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: To 6:18PM/7:15/7:49/9:25AM

Re Dromore:
The various contracts that Bernstein wrote implied that he was an Agent of the Town of Greenburgh. The Town Attorney gives assurances that Mr. Bernstein had no such authority.
There are legal and professional consequences to such actions. Either Mr. Bernstein was representing himself or he was representing the Town -- the lady or the tiger?
"Here comes the judge, here comes the judge".

Re Taxter:
As I mentioned at the very beginning of summarizing what I know, beginning with WARNING, I said that I was not going to continue to be involved with reiterating just a rumor.

I also indicated that if anonymous bloggers persisted in keeping the rumor alive that I would direct their comments back to where I and others first heard this rumor.

Continue your dialogue with Jim Lasser of Edgemont -- I'm sure he can provide you with all that you are seeking if you are seeking anything other than the sound of one hand clapping. Your own.

Thus I would expect your seeming curiousity and "ruminations" to continue on this blog introduced instead as:
Dear Jim,

It is odd too that you are so concerned about a hypothetical and a maybe -- and want to know more.
Anyone else see the cozy, tenuous relationship that flourishes among "hypothetical", "maybe",
"rumor" and writing as "anonymous".

To all others who may walk this way. The assassination attempt being launched by anonymous is playing the propoganda game of using associative terms like "the facts of this case", "the Feiner Gold connection", "get paid". "if Feiner knew". and "Feiner might be guilty". Isn't "if" a useful word: if you start a sentence with "if" you can go anywhere, say anything, slime anyone.

If words were whores, then even anonymous could get laid.

Re the Taxter/Gold topic, that's all folks...
If you need "facts" ask Jim Lasser or Lorrin Brown or the wicked witches of East Hartsdale Avenue, Jean Lane and Riverdale Avenue.; 3/02/2008 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: thanks herb for setting the facts out quite clearly.

unincorporated folks like preiser who do not use the parks or even know where they are, are leading that area of the town off a financial cliff.; 3/02/2008 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

Requesting the state legislature to clarify what constitures use by residents is a simple and easy request.

It is Paul who is threatening the TOV with consegeuences if they dont allow Villagers use of TOV facilities at minimal cost.

Instead of trying to make the TOV bear the cost of facilities for the entire Town, including the Villages, it would be better for the Village representatives to try to develope a fair plan.; 3/02/2008 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: to 11:02.

If you keep repeating things that are not true, then one can never get a solution to anything.

Nothing in the amendment that Paul Feiner proposed says, much less threatens, "the TOV with consequences if they dont allow Villagers use of TOV facilities at minimal cost." What his proposal says and does is to provide an escape hatch for the TOV from the court decision, which says that Finneran requires that only unincorporated residents can use town parks and facilities. That is accomplished by giving the Town Board the authority to create exemptions from the residency restriction. The Town Board is not required to make any such exemption under the proposal. It may, and I repeat "may." make such exemptions if it deems it beneficial for the TOV.

11:02 then says that "instead of trying to make the TOV bear the cost of facilities for the entire Town, including the Villages, it would be better for the Village representatives to try to develop a fair plan." It is state law, not village represntatives, that make the TOV bear the cost of town facilites (as the villages bear the cost of village facilities). I also remind him that more than two years ago SCOBA and later the VOC suggested that the town and villages get together to try to do just that, and their suggestions were ignored. The kind of thing you are talking about takes time -- much, much time.

Besides, we are dealing now with something in the nature of emergency -- an emergency that only the Town Board can solve. The village representatives are speaking, rather than remaining on the sidelines, only because any change in the law will require agreement by the village Boards of Trustees. Their efforts to help the town are being misconstrued, or maybe purposely distorted, by person whose anger at the very predictable court decision has motivated a self-destructive course.; 3/02/2008 11:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

Your idea of a solution is that the TOV should pay all costs and the Town Board should have complete freedom in deciding if the Villagers can have access at nominal cost. I dont think that is a solution.

The only parties who can solve this are the State Legislature and the courts.; 3/02/2008 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

The SCOBA committee was stacked against the TOV taxpayers. It included Village representatives and people assoicated with Town facilities dependent upon the Town for funding. No one was there who spoke for TOV taxpyaers. And you wonder why this has happended. You know better.; 3/02/2008 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: i have listened to rosenberg, mcnally and preiser and sheehan

only rosenberg (and byrne and feiner) make sense and come off as authentic and genuine.

sheehan and his supporters are leading unincorporated down a dangerous path.; 3/02/2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: And what path would that be? Another 20% tax increase.; 3/02/2008 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: What if any, outstanding bonds does TOV have on any Parks and Rec properties? Does anyone know the dollar amounts? Am I to understand correctly that only TOV must pay down any debt on these properties?; 3/02/2008 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous 12:01

I'm sure you mean well, but what you say can't work.

You are right that my view, and that of many others who have thought deeply about a solution, is that the Town Board must have the authority to make decisions. If you regard the Town Board as the enemy (as some activists have argued) then nothing will happen and the crisis will become a disaster. The state isn't going to get into town recreation management, and the courts don't deal with town government management issues either. Nor will the state accept a statute that gets into details and minutae of town recreation policies, especially policies that may have to change from time to time. That is why we elect legislatures (such as the Town Board), who have responsibility for policy.

So, if the Town Board is handcuffed by the view you express, then the TOV will undoubtedly pay a big price. If that point were understood, I doubt very much that your view would be welcomed by the 42,000 residents who will have to suffer the inevitable result.

But as I have said time and again, it is a problem for unincorporated, not for the villages. We can help, but incorporated has to solve it.

To 12:04.

You really know nothing about SCOBA. It was not stacked at all. It consisted of seven unincorporated area residents and six village residents. The persons that I appointed to chair the two key subcommittes (legal analysis and budget analyis) were Mike Sigal and Jack McLaughlin, who are now members of the group appointed by the prior Town Board to represent unincorporated Greenburgh in the proposed mediation. You can bet the house that they strongly represented the interest of unincorporated, but they were also fair and objective (as were all thirteen members) and did a bang-up job, and that is why we were able to produce a unanimous report that was, and remains, a landmark in illuminating town/village issues.

If you want to stand in the way of a solution, you should really try to marshall some legitimate arguments rather than falling back on the old standbys that the ideological activists always thrown out to divert attention from their failed arguments on law.; 3/02/2008 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

From the amount of postings by Village persons, it seems pretty clear to me that the Villages, at least some, want or are even desperate for access.

And Paul is the one who brought up that the legislation might not allow reasonable useage. And now it is shame on the TOVers for trying to come up with a fair solution.; 3/02/2008 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Herb,

I have an idea.

If we allow the Town Council to allow uesage of TOV facilities by Village people, then can we allow one of the unincorporated Greenburgh neighborhood groups to allow use of the Dobbs Ferry facilities.; 3/02/2008 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Sheehan is not taking sides in the bubble plan.He is not helping the unincorpoated area no how.
ZThe finnernanlaw was good for Taxter rd.and it should stay in place.
If we can't afford the parks that we have now we could start closing the facilities or better still if the villages want they could buy them.
We have to abide by the law that is in place at the moment.
We cannot make any changes to suit friends anymore,the cost is too high.
Bernstein lost but we all know that he also won.
Thank you Bernstein,yes we could fight the system and win.; 3/02/2008 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Sheehan is not taking sides in the bubble plan.He is not helping the unincorpoated area no how.
ZThe finnernanlaw was good for Taxter rd.and it should stay in place.
If we can't afford the parks that we have now we could start closing the facilities or better still if the villages want they could buy them.
We have to abide by the law that is in place at the moment.
We cannot make any changes to suit friends anymore,the cost is too high.
Bernstein lost but we all know that he also won.
Thank you Bernstein,yes we could fight the system and win.; 3/02/2008 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: As Hal, always said, all it takes is 3 votes. So I am pretty certain the Town Council will meet and will pass a resolution asking the State to amend the Finnerman law, as Paul has proposed. And I am pretty certain many residents of unincorporated Greenburgh will write their respresentatives and ask for a fair resolution.; 3/02/2008 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Get a life! Get real! Who is being hurt? Unincorporated residents. We need an amendment to the Finerman law so we can bring our family and friends to the pool with us as guests.; 3/02/2008 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:08

All we need is to ask the State for CLARIFICATION, NOT MODIFICATION of the Finnerman Law that the reasonable use by residents includes having guests, having home and away meets, etc. WE DO NOT NEED TO GIVE AWAY FACILITIES. WE DONT EVEN THE TOWN BOARD, WE JUST NEED TO START CONTACTING OUR STATE LEGISLATURES.; 3/02/2008 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Herb or Peter,

are you in favor of Ardsley and Hastings being recipients of TOV tax money for the fire protection districs?

If so, how do you justify non-competitive bidding for these contracts?

Isn't this another example of special treatment that the Villages receive?; 3/02/2008 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: What say ye, oh great defender of the Supervisor, AKA Hal Samis. Do you think it is right for the villages to recieve hundreds of thousands of dollars in no bid contracts for the fire protection districts?; 3/02/2008 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Feiner is the one who needs to be asked about illegal contracts with the villages. Samis and Rosenberg will defend Feiner's actions to the death. Having a no-bid contract when there are other options available is a clear example of how Feiner takes care of the villages.; 3/02/2008 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: He also has Greenburgh Police provide services to the Villages - this must stop.

The TOV can not afford to provide parks, fire district payments and police to the Villages. We had a 20% tax increase. And Paul thinks this is OK.; 3/02/2008 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Exactly!!!!

Edgemont has a rash of home burglaries and our tax dollars are being spent catching drug dealers in Tarrytown and Irvington. This is ridiculous. Can we sue to recoup the Police Department funds that are being spent on protecting the Villages?; 3/02/2008 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Worse, they were called to break up a teenage drinking party in Irvington -- cant the Irvington police handle that on their own?? Oh I am really scared, a bunch of Irvington teenagers --oh I need backup, get the SWAT; 3/02/2008 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: We need a bottem up approach to the B budget -- anything shared with the Villages has to go.; 3/02/2008 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Which Village moored Kapica's Navy??; 3/02/2008 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:56

Whatever Village that is, they are probably charging the B budget for mooring fees. Get rid of Kapica's Navy.; 3/02/2008 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I can't wait to read the responses of Rosenberg, Samis and Swiderski to the illegal, no bid contracts that the Villages receive for fire protection and also what their feelings are on GPD protecting the Villages at the expense of TOV.; 3/02/2008 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Dont you understand. The Villagers are most of the voters. They dont answer to us. They only demand what we must pay for.; 3/02/2008 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear 4:07,
Thanks for your kind invitation to come join the tryouts for the school play. However...

You may have noticed that I have refrained from direct comments on the A and B issues, sewer districts, school districts and fire districts.

However, I am getting ready to respond to another no bid contract, that one being the hiring of brokers to handle Town bond refinancing. This baby's not ready to pop out yet, but very soon. You'll be the first to know.

I rent, don't pay taxes, and can't be smart about everything. Thus, by limiting my involvement to a few issues, I can engage the few well rather than knowing little about the many. Not having been born during the Rennaissance has much to do with my not being known as a Rennaissance man. That's why those that are concerned, with their own reasons, have some fields all to themselves.

Surely on such issues that are so crystal clear to everyone, no one need actually depend on "more the merrier" actually showing up.

But maybe you should add to your list some more experts from the villages, instead of me ask Diana Juettner and Suzanne Berger.

Or maybe you would do better letting your fingers do the walking.; 3/02/2008 4:30 PM
Anonymous said...: No Hal, you have made it clear, you only oppose things the Supervisor is against. So predictable.; 3/02/2008 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Suzane Berger wanted a negotatied agreement to the Parks issues. The Villages villified her. So tell them to go play on their own fields now.; 3/02/2008 4:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear town council,how much money has been given back to us for the use of our police in the villages.
What other services are we paying for to have the villages enjoy the freebees.
Do we have to have another investigation to get to the bottom of mismanagement of tax payers monies.
If this is needed so be it.
We had a few audits a few more won't hurt including the villages books also..; 3/02/2008 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: This "sharing" of services -- like our Navy -- is just another way for the Town to provide servides to the Villages. It must stop. No one trusts allocations under Feiner's control.; 3/02/2008 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Between no bid fire protection contracts, greenburgh police department protection including Kapica's Navy and the use of our parks, the Villagers receive well over a million dollars a year in services that TOV pays for.

What exactly do we get in return???

Come on Rosenberg and Swiderski, lets hear what TOV gets.

Since Samis has no defense for the Supervisor on these issues, he chose to sit this one out and leave you two to carry the flag.; 3/02/2008 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Every one complains about Parks and Recs, the PD budget is larger, their overtime budget alone is over 1 million dollars. Does any one monitor the OT? Did they incur OT busting up this teenage drinking party? Why do we have to pay for this?

Paul doesnt care -- he lives in a gated community with preferential tax treatment over single family homes. We cant afford the 20% tax increase -- and he doesnt care.; 3/02/2008 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: I say NO! The non-TOV patrons couldn't be charged fees high enough to a) significantly offset the past & future costs incurred by of the TOV people for these town services and b)make it worthwhile to compete for time and space to use the current services.; 3/02/2008 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Could someone tell all of us how things got so much out of hand.
All these freebees that the villagers receive started when.
How come no one has checked into this when it first started.
Where were our comptrollers?
Why do we have to give these services without payback.
We all pay taxes to the fire dept.and to the police dept.how dare the town give away my hard earned money to pay for these free services to the villages.
Paul this has got to stop and we should get back all our money,and another thing you have given so much money to the police department in their budget so they can go out to work in the villages.
Have you gone crazy?
This blog has opened our eyes and mind to how crooked this town has been run for some time.
Yes it started before Paul's time but it should have been checked out as soon as a new administration came into power.
We have to have paybacks and this way of doing business stopped.
.; 3/02/2008 5:38 PM
Anonymous said...: If Greenburgh pd work in the villages the overtime money should be deducted from the budget.; 3/02/2008 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe things were allocaed wrong in the past, but we cant change the past. We have to focus on the future. Also, as the Town budgets keep increasing, the problems become more serve. Yet Paul doesnt care.; 3/02/2008 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Let them have their use of the pool and tennis. That's all we have to offer. There ain't nothing else of value left.

They can reciprocate and allow our families into their schools, camps, rec programs...

Sounds like a fair deal to me.; 3/02/2008 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's give the Villages The Theodore Young center!!; 3/02/2008 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I wrote earlier to explain some aspect of the town problems resulting from the court's upholding of the Finneran Law. What I see are the usual and endless "hate the villages" postings, plus such words as "freebies," "Kapica's navy," no-bid contracts, and the like -- words mentioned by one anonymous person and the repeated by his copy-cats. Someone also asked what the TOV gets from the villages.

I peobably shouldn't answer such silly stuff, and I wil not after this letter, but here goes.

The villages pay the town for such police services as are given to the villages.

I know nothing about the contracts with the Hastings fire department except that they provide a service to a part of Greenburgh that adjoins Hastings and therefore are more able to provide the quick response that is needed than the nearest fire department in Greenburgh. I suppose that saving lives is less important to those writers than putting down villages.

As to what the villages do for the TOV, the A budget (of which village residents pay about 50%) pays for the following Greenburgh government services for which the villages get no services or almost no services from the town: The Town Comptroller and his office, the Town Attorney and his office, the Purchasing department, the Town Hall, the Town Court and its employees, the Town Assessor's office, The Town Clerk and her office, the Town Engineer, most of the Central Services and Data Processing Departments, and some others. These expenses amount to many millions of dollars. Of course you don't hear unincorporated area residents call for fairness there, nor do you hear expressions of outrage from the villages, because it all comes out in the end. We in the villages do not fight over splitting the lunch check, nor do we think of the unincorporated area as an evil enemy, as some of you think of the villages.

That's it. No more from me. I will leave the field to those who get their pleasure from trashing others.; 3/02/2008 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Rosenberg,

The Villages also get their own Mortgage Recording Tax and share in the Towns.

The A Budget also gets all fines collected by the Courts.

There are a number of anomolies. If you want them to change, contact your state representatives.; 3/02/2008 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: And Mr. Feiner, tell our PD to restrict their activities to unincorporated Greenburgh.; 3/02/2008 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Rosenberg is the KING of disinformation!!!!!

There is no way that Hastings can get to the Donald Park section of Greenburgh faster than the Greenville Fire Department. Hastings is an all volunteer department. In the middle of the night, they would have to get out of their own homes and drive to the fire house in order to drive the fire trucks to the emergency. Greenville on the other hand has a crew of professional fireman on hand at all times. Their response time would be far quicker. Response time in emergencies saves lives. Anyone who supports Hastings covering Donald Park or Ardsley covering their protection district either does not know the facts or does not care about saving lives.

With regard to paying partially for the Comptroller, Town Hall, Attorney etc, you are again misleading. The comptroller manages the infamous A/B Budget now doesn't he? The Villages receive a service there. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Town Hall used by the likes of you and Danny Gold? The Town Attorney has spent far too much time DEFENDING your ability to use OUR parks.

I'm sure that the other payments that you Villagers make to the Town is comensurate with what you receive. Unlike TOV who get NOTHING from the Villages!; 3/02/2008 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Samis won't comment. Rosenberg leaves with his tail between his legs. I guess its up to Swiderski to defend the cause. You started this thread Swiderski and the Supervisors staunchest defenders have fallen by the wayside because of it. It is up to you to pick up the pieces.; 3/02/2008 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Swiderski's fire department is the beneficiary of a no bid contract. I would love to see what he has to say about that.; 3/02/2008 6:41 PM
Anonymous said...: They dont fight over splitting checks - Hahaha

Becuase they just dump the check on the TOV, and they think covering the tip is their share.; 3/02/2008 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: If Mr. Rosenberg beleives that the Villages are getting the raw end of the deal, then I think he should ask Paul to try to get the uncorporated areas to become part of or form a village.; 3/02/2008 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...: William Wordsworth wrote, "a little education is a dangerous thing." In Greenburgh it may be hazardous to ones health.

Let me get this straight. a variety of responders, most likely Bernstein-supporters, or Bernstein in mutiple entries have written.

"Bernstein has won."Let's examine this conclusion.
(A) Bernstein brought suit against Greenburgh to have the villages pay for the town parks and recs.
(B) Bernstein won in the lower court. The villages would have to pay for the town parks and recs.
(C) Bernstein 1-Greenburgh 0
(D)Greenburgh appeals
(E) Greenburgh wins, which mean Finneran Law wins, which means only the unincorporated pay for the town parks and recs, which means Bernstein loses.
(F) Bernstein 1- Greenburgh 1, but the tie goes to the higher court, which means:
BERNSTEIN LOSES.

So how can anyone with a double digit IQ or one approaching triple digits say Bernstein won?

Does he have such a convoluted Machiavellian/prescient mind that he knew in advance he would win in the lower court-thus giving the "townies'a joyous occasion and visions of sugar plum fairies dancing around in their minds for a little while.

He also knew the Town Board would appeal, which in turn would result in a devastatig loss and take these poor folks from their higher than high to an even greater fall, thus engendering hostile feeling by two and hating the villages for, well, being villgers.

Is that how Bernstein is a winner? No, not even a moron studying hard to be an idiot would buy into that fairy tale.

So the only conclusion a sane person can come to is: Bernstein is spreading the nonsense that losing is really winning and he knew it all the time.

On another front, there is enough hate on this blog to export some in order to use as a cash crop to lower taxes.In no special order, Feiner is excoriated, so are Bernstein, Gold, Sheehan, Jeuttner, Bass/Barnes(although they are no longer around) Samis, Rosenberg, McNally, Krauss,Kapica,
Garfunkel,Stellato, Regula,Preiser, Wilk, Berger,L.Brown, Weems just to name a few.

What is wrong with you people? do your wives henpeck you and you take out the agression you have for her on others? Or are you married to a husband who verbally abuses you and you're afraid to return it in kind?

You can make your point, as angry as you may be, without assassinating the character of another human being. Any of the people named above can cause agida, but they are not attacking your character, so play rough but play fair.; 3/02/2008 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: I love it, Mr. 7:05. Lets not attack individuals. But Bernstein is spreading nonsense?

No, most of this blog is dealing with the current proposal to change the Finnerman Law. Which many TOV people are saying no to -- you can pay and you can play. Othersise, the Villages should play on their own fields.; 3/02/2008 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear 7:15

The Village People only like to play, they NEVER want to pay.; 3/02/2008 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: After all the questions that Kevin asked the Fairview fire dept. Representatives we already know that the money that they are seeking will be granted plus the money that they spent last year without money allotted to them.
How could this be possible.
If money is granted to only Fairview it is illegal as the state comptroller has said,the money is to be used town wide.
I do hope when you vote on the resolution that you will not cause another reason to have another investigation.
Being a retired police person I think you should say something about using Greenburgh police in the villages for special duties.
Is Greenburgh reimbursed fully and why should we be paying all the money on overtime if we have men working outside their juristiction.
If we release them from duty that means their services are not needed here.Are we over staffed that this is permitted.
Answers please.; 3/02/2008 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Anonymous:

There has been an alarming increase in the number of things you know nothing about.

Please stop.; 3/02/2008 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Frank lee is there something that you can comment on to change the above comment.Please answer.; 3/02/2008 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon at 7:55 -- Special duties???

Breaking up a teenage drinking party?? Irvington needs back up for that??? Maybe next week there will be a jaywalker they need help with.

My advice to the Villeges -- stop taking assistance from Greenburgh PD, otherwise people will want this charged to you.; 3/02/2008 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I’m sorry, but I can’t distinguish your anonymous comments from those in your family.

If you had the common decency like Messrs. Swiderski, Malone, Garfunkel, Rosenberg, Krauss and Samis to identify yourself, perhaps I could enter into a meaningful and constructive dialogue with you.

Short of that, I can’t tell which anonymous you are - you all look the same.

Are you the all-knowing anonymous who chastises Mr. Swiderski for extending an olive branch and attempting to resolve this matter amicably?

Or are you the monarchial anonymous that characterizes Mr. Samis as a biased Feiner supporter, without crediting him for his zeal and well-researched opinions?

Maybe you’re the caring anonymous that unabashedly refers to his neighbor as the “brain dead twins” or “clueless” or diagnoses them as having a major case of "little Man syndrome?"

Or are you’re the brave anonymous that takes cheap shots at Chief Kapica and the Police Department?

Please educate me . . . I would appreciate it.

Then when you run for public office, and are part of the solution rather than part of the problem, I could vote for you.; 3/02/2008 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Lee,

I see nothing specific to help us after you said a previous poster didnt know what he was talking about.

For the Nth time, people who are not supporters of Mr. Feiner are generally afraid to post.

P.S. Immediately prior to your latest posting Mr. Lee, the website was taken down for 5 minutes. That is usually a sign that Mr. Feiner is posting.; 3/02/2008 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: To the Anonymous who can't live without my comments:

Thanks for the flattery. I am overwhelmed by your need to have my comments, even on subjects that I admit that I know nothing about.

But you don't really want my comments do you; you just want to position me as a Feiner supporter.
On that I shall comment. I am a Feiner supporter. Knowing that, I guess you don't need to know my comments or opinions after all because naturally anyone who supports the Supervisor must toe his line.

But maybe it has nothing to do with the Supervisor. Maybe you just want me to comment on things that I don't know anything about so that you will appreciate my opinions more when I write about things I do know about.

Hard to understand and harder to agree that someone implies that I don't think independently because you all know that when I have things to say, I don't hold back. Or that if I am silent, it must be because I disagree. Or if I am silent it must be because I agree.
Take your pick.

Odd too that the worst attacks on free speech (or silence) are put forth by those that call themselves anonymous. What's next, more troopers for Kapica, the Greenburgh thought police?

But if what I'm dealing with is an out of season Secret Santa who needs a daily dose of my wit and wisdom, be it known that my birthday is April 15.
I'm hoping for a really expensive gift because if, it's like some people say, just the thought that counts, I only can reciprocate with thoughts to share that are ready for prime time before I write or open my mouth.

A policy that could benefit many members of the phylum, anonymous.

And it looks like, no one has any more questions about Mr. Gold and Taxter Ridge to ask of Mr. Lasser.

Good Night Mr or Ms Citizenbash, wherever you are.; 3/02/2008 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Anonymous 9:19 p.m.:

Please have the testicular fortitude to identify yourself and I will try to specifically address your anonymous comment.

Why are people who are not supporters of Mr. Feiner "generally afraid to post?" Does Mr. Feiner have some power that I'm not aware of? Will your house be foreclosed upon? Will your car be repossessed? Will your favorite chair be sat in?

Hiding behind the "anonymous" moniker, my friend, is not the by-product of fear: it is cowardly.

I do, however, appreciate your educating me on Mr. Feiner's latest post (re: sidewalks on Route 9A) - that explains why I had to type my post twice. Thanks.; 3/02/2008 10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Anony claims Bernstein won. If he won how come he was required by the court to pay the town the legal costs? When Bernstein writes the check to the town will he smile and say - "thank you court, I won".; 3/02/2008 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I wish I knew who Mr. 10:13 is. I'd love to have a drink with him. He is worth talking with for a couple of hours.; 3/02/2008 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Congrats to Herb Rosenberg, Frank Lee, Peter Swiderski, Hal Sammis and some others who have the guts to sign their remarks and stand up, as this current Board is doing. I did not attend the latest Town Board meeting, but I have watched it a number of times on the "boob tube."

The performance by Ms. Judy Beville was remarkable. After being baited by Ms. Weems, she gave her a long and detailed answer despite being interrupted by this individual countless times. I not only admire Ms. Beville, but I am insanely happy that I helped work in her successful campaign. She is doing a great job, and I think every witness to her actions would agree. This Board no longer will take abuse. In the last six years the withering attacks from many with special and hidden interests broke this Board apart. When did Steve Bass ever "call off the dogs?" Never! He sat with his Cheshire cat smile. Ms. Barnes and Ms. Juettner rarely spoke or defended their votes or stood up for the Supervisor even when they agreed with him.

It seems that any time anyone has the guts to stand up for Feiner or the Board they are catagorized by someone named "anonymous" as being his apologist or members of the Paulitbureau. They are always afraid of the wrath of Feiner. I am sure that the Supervisor knows his friends, and yes, his enemies after 25 years in Greenburgh.

I have labeled this loose coalition the CABAL for a number of years. I do not shrink from labeling these folks with that name, and I have said it in public and on this blog.

Herb Rosenberg and Hal Samis have criticized Mr. Feiner on many substantive issues over the years. Both do their homework, and I have learned that both are quite fair. They are two different individuals, with different perspectives, and they both want to be heard. Nothing wrong with that. A number of the other contributors I do not really know.

Too long has this Town Board been held hostage by a few willful people. I have nothing against free speech and criticism. Long may it live! But divisiveness, for the sake of political gain, has the right to be labeled. It is what it is. I also note that Danny Gold has been smeared time and time again on this blog. I believe that Mr. Gold has disagreed with Mr. Feiner on a number of issues in the past.

Therefore, I believe that one should not waste their time answering thse baseless canards from the "anonymous" few who hide under the hood and cloak of secrecy!

Let our friends who haunt Town Hall continue to expose their own hatred and prejudice. They are the authors of the 730 day campaign. These individuals have created chaos for too long. They have chased away legitimate comment and they have turned off the average citizen. Hopefully now, with the strength of this Board, the average citizen will feel comfortable petitioning his local government.

Richard J. Garfunkel

(; 3/02/2008 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: To my fellow Greenburgh residents -

There are many issues raised here outside of the Finneran law change before the Board. A number are perfectly legitimate questions that I don't have an answer for tonight. For example, I can't speak to questions about the Fire contract with my Village, Hastings. I did not negotiate it, but a writer asks a legitimate question about process. I will try to get an answer, I make no promises. The issue of other budget items came up. In fact, this is something I would be ready to comment on since it is something I do have a handle on, but the short answer is that I am more than convinced that the Villages recieve services, we pay taxes, and it is a pretty fair deal for all concerned. I do happen to agree, having done the analysis, that we pay for marginally more than we use, but frankly, it's not worth the bother to complain about it. Instead of paying $100, I probably should be paying about a third less. But you know, that's not worth fighting about. We Villagers are a small, small part of the Town budget, and the Town is a small part of my tax bill. My Village taxes are far more serious than the Town tax, and far more serious than the tax borne by most unincorporated citizens, who really benefit from a robust commercial tax base - good for you!

My point, however, is that we are a sideshow for the Town, and vice versa. Far too much time is being spent fomenting war between the Villages and the Town for the amount of money involved - a war that 99% of the Villagers are completely unaware of and that should stay that way.

We are way overdue for taking the temperature down between us. We really don't have a truly legitimate reason to be at odds, and there are far more interesting things we could be doing together. I would welcome beginning to explore sharing costs with the Town on things like asphalt resurfacing contracts where joint bids might benefit us all.

Look, the Finneran case outcome was a restart button that set us back to where we were before. That place wasn't a bad place. I can certainly see the anger and even hate (a wasted emotion on people who don't deserve it or return it) here. But it isn't reciprocated. I don't think your intentions are bad. You're angry with Paul and the results of the election and the outcome of the course case. That's not the Villages' fault. Paul gets elected with plenty of support from Unincorporated. The election outcome indicated how profoundly two decent people, Steve and Eddie Mae, got swept up on the wrong side of a set of issues and lost the election in a landslide. It happens. Finally, the court case, I repeat, is not the Village's fault. We didnt' sue Greenburgh. But we won and our position on the law was reinforced.

Ultimately, the Villages are looking for a stable partner that doesn't treat us shabbily, and I am sure that you guys are looking for the same as well. We're very much junior partners - we really don't have much to do with your internal affairs. I recognize that many feel completely slighted by your Board and that somehow believe we pull the strings. We don't. Look, we ask that we be treated fairly, we do NOT ask for handouts, and we do not want to be involved in 95% of your affairs. We don't have the bandwidth, we don't have the interest and we don't have the motivation. There are precious few items of ours on your agenda and I am sure you would prefer it that way.

To everyone who had the courage to attach a name to their posting, good for you and keep it up. Let's talk as people. To those who asked questions I didn't answer, apologies. I'll try to make more of your Greenburgh meetings, so buttonhole me when you see me and talk to me. I'll answer as best I can. And to those who slammed me or doubt my intentions, come out of the shadows and talk to me too. I have nothing to hide and I'm not playing games with you.

The work week lies ahead and I am not sure there are many more posts out of me. I will be at the Tuesday night meeting for the first hour. I have a Board Meeting at 8PM back in Hastings that I have to return for, so I can only stay for 45 minutes. Apologies.

We're not looking to jam anything through, and anything that is passed will take weeks to pass out own Boards. We will be very deliberative in our review of the modifications. We're no more eager than you to modify poorly a law that we just spend years and hundreds of hours of our effort defending. Let's see what happens. It won't make you all happy. If it doesn't happen, a bunch of people are going to be bummed. And vice versa. We're all going to land somewhere on that continuum. Let's try to work together to make sure that the number who are bummed are truly small.

Thanks people.; 3/03/2008 12:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

We will just have to agree to disagree. I think the Villages are looking for a handout. The nominal payments anticipated, which the Town Board would have the authority to set, would not come close to covering what these facilities actually cost. So go to the Town Board meeting, in end they will vote with the villages and send a resolution to the State. That resolution will likely not be supported by large numbers of residents from unincorporated Greenburgh (those who actually pay for the parks). I think the state will undersand the basic concept here that if you dont pay for the facilty you shouldnt be using it.; 3/03/2008 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. Swiderski-

Thanks for your well balanced and reasonable piece. It is a mystery I am sure to you, as it is to many others, what these so-called Village-unincorporated issues are about. In fact, you characterized perfectly the "tempest in a teapot," which is constantly being re-hashed here on this blog.

These so-called issues have been manufactured and sustained as a political tactic, and they have been blown far of proportion to their worth. As you stated below, the average citizen has many, more important issues to dwell upon!

"My point, however, is that we are a sideshow for the Town, and vice versa. Far too much time is being spent fomenting war between the Villages and the Town for the amount of money involved - a war that 99% of the Villagers are completely unaware of and that should stay that way."

Your understanding is completely correct. This faux issue, created by people like Robert Bernstein and his ilk of supporters, is to attempt to push the citizenry of Edgemont into a frenzy over the incorporation issue.

They have talked about becoming a village and banding together with the other villages to even form their own town, and abandon the unincorporated area to its own devices. They basically wish to divorce themselves from the Fairview area, because they do not want their tax dollars supporting the Young Center or any other townwide initiatives that seem distant to them.

The issue over parks, or Taxter Ridge is a device. Most citizens have no clue about Taxter Ridge or could care less. The critical issue involving Bernstein, Bass, and Barnes, and what ultimately cost their devestating defeat, was the Dromore Road gambit and the issue of secret meetings to exclude out the Supervisor. If Sheehan had been on the ballot he would have been defeated also.

The other issue that affected the results of the last election was the incompetant party leadership of Suzanne Berger and her effort to manipulate the party designations and spending of the party for her own special reasons.

All in all, there are legitimate critics of any government, at any level. Many honest people disagree.

But for sure there are a few distinct types of critics in Greenburgh. One group is made up of the power wannabees and haters of Paul Feiner. The other is made up by legitimate individuals who feel that they want a different direction on some issues; ie, the library, Central Avenue, the infrastructure, town/village relationships, etc. The last group is made up by some indivduals who see themselves as uncontrolled by any faction, and want to say their piece.

Richard J. Garfunkel; 3/03/2008 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Kevin after all you questions that were asked and answered by the Fairview chief,one can see that they will receive the money plus what they spent last year without having the money allotted to them.
The investigationed proved that the town was acting illegally,which means in plain english Fairview cannot receive the money .
These monies should be for town wide use .UNDERSTOOD.
If they had gotten some money in the previous years that has to be taken into consideration as a deduction.
The other fire dept. plus the Greenburgh schools should definitley receive their share.
Let's see if the comptrollers ruling will be acted upon or not.; 3/03/2008 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...: As the villages have access to TDYCC, they should be paying for it. Or it should be downsized. If they can people from Elsmford etc, why should that be charged to TOV -- do you have that on your list of inequities, Mr. Garfunkle. If it were charged to entire town, there would be more money for TDYCC programs.; 3/03/2008 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Garfunkle,

I live in unincorporated Greenburgh and do not use TDYCC, but have no problem with my taxes supporting any facility which is charged to the A or B budget based on who is eligible to use it. What you want is a system that the Villages dont have to pay, but can still use. And you wonder why incorporation is being pursued?; 3/03/2008 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: When you add the Parks and Rec issue to the money for the FD and the huge PD budget (apparently some of which is being used to police the villages), what one sees is large expenditures for which the benefit is small. Paul shows no desire to get control of the B budget, only the A. I am tired of being a second class citizen.; 3/03/2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: How fast lies spread.

The Greenburgh PD performs some small services (like EMS) for which the villages pay the town. It is an intentional lie that is being spread that the PD services the villages.; 3/03/2008 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Do you call a narcotics raid which sometimes takes weeks and days or drinking parties in the woods or at someone's home a nothing thing.
You have got to be sick
Then with the EMS service that takes our police dept away from our town ,
Why can't the villages get their own services, yes Kapica was all for this service but he dosen't pay our taxes ,so he could lay on us whatever he sees fit to to put another feather in his cap.
Why must the town pay out all these expenses so the villages could have the best without investments.
We paid top dollar for the truck and what ever else is needed to service our town not the villages.
We pay for schooling of the personel manning this service,so why do others benefit from what we are expected to pay.
We can truthfully say that the town boards have raped us over the years to give the villages what was intended to be used by us and only us.
.; 3/03/2008 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Garfunkel now your comments are starting to get very sick.
Keep your dam mouth shut we know what we pay for and get in return.
Now a lot of dirt has hit the fan which should be aired out before it gets'out oh hand and before the board starts working on next years budget ripoff.; 3/03/2008 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Some observations re comments made here but not directly related to Mr. Swiderski’s initial posting.

First, with respect to the fire contracts between the various volunteer fire departments and portions of unincorporated Greenburgh. If the residents of these areas believe that they are being “over charged” why not seek out a different fire protection source? Is anyone holding a gun to your head? If these people would check the rates charged by Fairview, Greenville and Hartsdale fire districts, they will quickly see that the rates charged by these volunteer fire departments result in a cost that is about 25 – 30% of the rates charged by the above mentioned fire districts. As to the contracts themselves, they are reviewed by the Town Attorney and Town Comptroller, among others before they are finalized.

Second, with respect to the Greenburgh Alcohol and Drug Task Force. Ask Chief Kapica about this. My understanding is that this force is comprised of officers from most if not all of the six Villages as well as members of the Greenburgh (unincorporated) Police Department. Each department pays for its respective members salary and benefits. They are led by a Sergeant from the Greenburgh Department. They go wherever their leads take them within the entire Town. They as a prior poster has indicated were for many years based out of the Village of Ardsley police facilities at no cost to the entire Town. Get the facts from Chief Kapica as to how many incidents this group has been involved with and where in the Town they took place. I don’t know what the breakdown is. Ask him if he would want this task force disbanded.

Get the facts first and then join in reasonable discussion, if the facts warrant.; 3/03/2008 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski

I am a TOV resident. At the present time, I oppose an amendment to the Finnerman law. I stress the word "present" because I think more time is needed for thoughtful discussion and consideration of the issues. I do not believe that there is a crises that requires an immediate amendment.

I started to go through the blog but did not finish. I quickly decided to ignore all the anonymous postings.

For what it is worth, I am a lawyer. I supported the acquisition of Taxter Ridge and my reading of the statute a number of years ago led me to believe that it was a B budget item. That being said, I felt that Bernstein had standing to pursue his action and I felt that the Villages had standing to intervene. Here are some of my concerns and/or observations in no particular order.

First and foremost I think we need time to obtain the considered judgment of the people. I am a director of my local civic association -- the Edgemont Association. I do not know what my non-anonymous neighbors think. We need time to canvass the people. I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable person on matters of local concern -- and I was not aware of the proposed amendment (something I still have not seen) until after the meeting last Wednesday.

Second, I do not believe that there is urgency to any amendment because I do not believe that Finnerman precludes (a) a resident from having a non-resident as a guest or (b) the Town from participating in a program that requires the Town to have non-residents use its facilities in the same manner as its residents use the facilities of another jurisdiction (such as baseball or swimming leagues and/or competitions). I am not sure whether Finnerman would preclude the Town from allowing non-TOV residents from participating in activities where TOV residents have priority where such participation allows the Town to provide the activity to TOV residents. I say all of the foregoing because I believe all laws have a sense of reasonable attached to their interpretation unless otherwise provided. I would like to think Finnerman was passed to provide guidance, not to mark a line in the sand.

Third, I am concerned that an amendment of Finnerman could allow the exception to swallow the rule. Finnerman was adopted at the urging of the Villages -- understandable. After the Appellate decision, I read (in the newspaper?) that the Village of Ardsley now wanted access to Veterans Park. Well, Arsdley had that chance a couple of decades ago and took a pass. It seems to me that Ardsley now wants the benefit without having the burden. There is something that is just not right about that. I think the same principle can apply to other situations.

In short, this is clearly something that needs to be discussed -- calmly and rationally would of course be the preferred method -- but I think it needs time. Many laws passed in haste will come back to haunt because there was not considered judgment.

Frank Kaiman; 3/03/2008 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Sure, we will let Villagers use our parks and rec, but in return our children should be able to attend the villages schools. After all we are one Town.
Once that happens then we can talk about uniting the Town as one!; 3/03/2008 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: In response to the contribution regarding the Young Center, it would be of interest to all what an audit would show regarding its use, vis-a-vis, people from the villages.

I would not make or offer a conclusion regarding that extra expense.

The following are recent blogs:

Dear 7:15

The Village People only like to play, they NEVER want to pay.

3/02/2008 7:27 PM

Mr. Garfunkle,

I live in unincorporated Greenburgh and do not use TDYCC, but have no problem with my taxes supporting any facility which is charged to the A or B budget based on who is eligible to use it. What you want is a system that the Villages dont have to pay, but can still use. And you wonder why incorporation is being pursued?

3/03/2008 12:23 PM

Is the first blog referring to people from all of the villages or just Elmsford? Do I sense a masking of a cultural allusion to the differences between the villages and who would use, or not use the Young Ctr? I hope not!

With regards to the 2nd contribution, I of course would want people to use a "pay as you go" system. If one is not allowed in a park or facility, but they are a village resident they should have to pay a fee, plain and simple. I can't imagine that anyone would think that I would believe any differently. I support user fees to supplement our budgetary shortfalls.

I believe that what the Board and the Supervisor are wrestling with is finding a correct balance for the Town, as a whole, the unincorporated area, and the villages. If the solution was so easy, where would there be a problem?

To just paint a broad brush over how people think, or what they deserve to be able to use is sophomoric.

With regards to both the Young and the Veteran ctrs, they both have strong rationale.

My point is that the use of Greenburgh Public Safety assets in the villages is probably quite small. I also believe that the usage of the Young Ctr and the Veteran Ctr should be evaluated. But I would be shocked if much more than a small percentagte of the 46,000 people in the villages even know where these facilities are. It would also be interesting to see how many people use the town pool in the summer. I am not talking about multiple visits, but the raw data regarding individuals. I would guess it is also small.

But parks, recreation and excellent services give a community a valuable cache and one's property values are enhanced by that cache.

As to incorporation, there seem to be two issues; Edgemont and the rest of the unincorporated area. Edgemont has talked about this issue for decades, and I believe that recent studies have indicated that incorporation would be a mistake economically. But they should decide for themselves. Would their incoporation hurt areas like Fairview? Yes!

As to having the rest of the unincorporated areas binding together or forming separate little villages, and having another town, I believe that that would be foolish, overly expensive, a duplication of services and unworkable. There are too many layers of government now. The well-respected retired Gannett journalist, Milton Hoffman, a resident of Greenburgh, has written extensively on that subject. He believes that we should be consolidating many of these political, fire and sewer and educational districts. I think that he is right. But obviously, neither Milt, nor I, have all of the answers.

Richard J. Garfunkel; 3/03/2008 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: dear mr kaiman:

question - if taxter is a b budget item and under finneran must be restricted in use to unincorporated greenburgh, are you ready to pay the state and county bonds (which required open access) so the town can now comply with finneran as strictly interpreted by the app div?

also - does your analysis if what belongs in the B budget extend to the young center? if so, what is your view?; 3/03/2008 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Garfunkel,

I am a village resident, and I ask you to PLEASE SHUT UP!

Mr. Swiderski has spoken well for the villagers and needs no help from you. All you are doing is bringing the pot to a boil without any need for it.

It has been made perfectly clear that amending the Finneran Law is to the advantage of unincorporated Greenburgh. If those residents don't want it, that's up to them. It is time for them to consider the consequences without more agita from you.

So please, you have been heard, and heard, and heard. STOP!; 3/03/2008 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: The Town should merge all the police depts in town and villages.
While they are at it merge all the Fire depts too! Paul please get the police officers out of the ambulances and onto patrol. Do we realy need the police on a tech rescue team when the fire depts are already trained ?; 3/03/2008 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: richard, every once and a while you are right. edgemont is not incorporating today or tomorrow. in fact, i believe there was a vote on this in the 1960s and it failed.

most of the villages incorporated in the 19th century.

eisenhower reportedly said if you want to solve a problem make it bigger. edgemont might want to consider merging with an already existing village such as ardsley.

a merger with scarsdale was attempted in the 1930s but rejected by scarsdale.

but in all likelihood nothing will change.; 3/03/2008 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon 2:03 Thanks for your great contribution!

Richard J. Garfunkel; 3/03/2008 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous @1:57 p.m.

If I understand your first question the answer is "yes" and was part of my consideration when I first decided to be in favor of the acquisition. I understand that I am paying for Taxter through the Town, the County and the State and that as a result of the latter two the Park is required to be open to all. Even though the primary beneficiary of the acquisition was the Irvington School District -- and there is something wrong with that given that Irvington does not contribute, even voluntarily to the cost -- I am willing as a TOV resident to underwrite the expense. I do hope that in the future the State/County/Town open the Ridge up to passive use -- I myself have walked the site.

The answer to your second question is "I do not know enough about the Center and its activities to express an informed opinion."

Frank Kaiman; 3/03/2008 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Richard
you're welcome

2:03; 3/03/2008 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I hope Frank Kaiman gives better advice to his clients than he gives us. He is telling us that we can disregard a law that the appeals court just told us in no uncertain terms prohibits non-residents from using our parks and recreation facilities. Why? According to Mr. Kaiman, because he thnks that it is reasonable to do so. Or to put it more directly, to violate the law.

We are in a trouble because Bob Bernstein told us that we can disregard what the Finneran Law said, and we will be paying big-time for his wrong advice. Now Mr. Kaiman is doing the same thing, telling us to disregard the Finneran Law.

What is the matter with these Edgemont lawyers?

We have been told by the appeals court what we can do and what we can't do. Let's stop playing games. Let's move to get the law amended so that we can legally let guests into our parks and so that we can have non-residents participate in league play and competitions when we require it, like other jurisdictions do. Other jurisdictions don't have a Finneran Law, and we do.

I am not a lawyer, but you don't have to be a lawyer to read the court decision and know exactly what it says. What Mr. Kaiman is saying is that it is OK to violate the law and a court ruling. What I say is that when I need a lawyer I will go to a lawyer who doesn't live in Edgemont.; 3/03/2008 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: some facts on ardsley and its recreation and library

40% of the rec fees come from village residents
60% from elsewhere including 20% from unincorporated and 19.5% from dobbs ferry

at times a nomimal surcharge is imposed to non village residents

the biggest users of the ardsley library come from unincorporated greenburgh.; 3/03/2008 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: kaiman should get out of edgemont more often. the irvington school district includes the village of irvington. so they are benefitting by taxter.

im amazed at your answer so i want to clarify it - you now agree that unincorporated is now obligated to pay the state and county's obligations for taxter - about 6 million dollars because they cannot allow taxter to be open to all residents of greenburgh including the villages?

i gather you also believe the town owes the villages a refund for the taxes they paid while the bernstein case was pending?; 3/03/2008 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous 3:42 p.m.

I recognize that your opinion is a reasonable one (and one I might myself adopt over time and discussion) -- although the manner you in which you express it is not. I was brought up to respect another person's viewpoint and their right to express it.

I would encourage you to express your viewpoint to your elected officials and to your local civic association. I would also urge you to hold yourself accountable for your views by telling them who you are.

And by the way, I am not giving "advice" to you or anyone else. I was merely expressing my opinion. And my clients seem to be overall satisfied with my representation of them.

Frank Kaiman; 3/03/2008 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: when did bob bernstein ever say finneran can be avoided? to the contrary, bernstein said finneran has two prongs - you can tax unincorporated only provided its restricted in use to unincorporated greenburgh.

the town did the first but not the second - so he said in that case finneran does not apply and everybody has to pay for a park like taxter that is open townwide.

the appellate court said the issue of use was not before them, just the taxation issue but impliedly the town can no longer allow its parks to be used by anyone. ergo the need for an amendment of the law to give the town flexibility to legitimize its current practices and to allow the tennis bubble to be built and to allow the town board to open certain facilities to people who live outside the unincorporated areas so the programs that serve unincorporated can continue in operation.; 3/03/2008 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Kaiman,

You say that you didn't give your advice, only your views.

Well early on you said "For what it is worth, I am a lawyer." You then went on to make lots of comments about the law and what the town board can do. And then later you answered another person's question about the law. I don't see much difference between you "advice" and your "views." You surely want your views to be followed.

I think that you earned my sarcasm. We have been misled by one lawyer telling us what the law is and being wrong. I usually respect what professionals say, like doctors and lawyers, because I think that they are telling me what they think rather than what they want me to think.

After the Bernstein debacle I don't want to be misled again. Your "views" shouldn't be mentioned as a lawyer unless you can back them up. If you can't then let's do it right this time and amend the law.

Maybe I'll ask the question this way. If the town is not permitted to have non-resident guests and non-residents participating in Greenburgh sporting activities, would you still want to take months to think all this through?

Or another question. Are you really giving us your view that the town should violate the law?; 3/03/2008 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: clarification - the irvington school district includes east irvington in unincorporated greenburgh - so they are paying for it and will pay more now that the entire cost of taxter belongs to unincorporated greenburgh -about 10 million or so. mr kaiman's taxes will also increase as he enjoys taxter's trails.

as for bernstein - he said you can tax unincorporated so long as a park is restricted in use to unincorporated greenburgh residents.

he never said it was ok to violate finneran. the town now concedes it is violating finneran but to adhere to finneran would destroy many of the town's programs.; 3/03/2008 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: 1:11 sounds like Francis Sheehan. No matter who it is, you said:

"First, with respect to the fire contracts between the various volunteer fire departments and portions of unincorporated Greenburgh. If the residents of these areas believe that they are being “over charged” why not seek out a different fire protection source? Is anyone holding a gun to your head? If these people would check the rates charged by Fairview, Greenville and Hartsdale fire districts, they will quickly see that the rates charged by these volunteer fire departments result in a cost that is about 25 – 30% of the rates charged by the above mentioned fire districts. As to the contracts themselves, they are reviewed by the Town Attorney and Town Comptroller, among others before they are finalized."

The above statement in no way addresses the fact that the Greenville Fire Department was not part of the bidding process. If they had been, possibly their bid would have been higher than Hastings, possibly it would have been lower, we'll never know. The point is; they should have been asked. No bid contracts are illegal. The fact that you include the Town attorney and the Town Comptroller in a no bid contract is quite troubling.; 3/03/2008 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Garfunkel,

What is your defense for no bid fire protection contracts???; 3/03/2008 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Why does Ardsley Rec receive 20% of it's budget from unincorporated? Why does Edgemont Rec receive money from Unincorporated? Who else is getting money and why?

Can anyone answer these questions?; 3/03/2008 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Ardsley Rec gets 20% of its budget from the B budget? How much money are we talking about.

btw, I was the orignal poster who commented re Elmsford using TDYCC. This has nothing to do with any bias. My comment was based on previosly provided inro (I think in the SCOBA report) re usage of the Lois Bronz child care facility which I beleive is located near TDYCC.; 3/03/2008 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Good job Frank,

Have we heard from Feiner's Edgemont supporters, including Don Snyder, the former community presidents? I know they havent said anything about Dromore, whch they said Feiner was committed to having it acquired as open space, but I would be interested to hear what they have to say about this proposal.; 3/03/2008 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...: hold on

ardsley rec is funded by the village

20% of the users of the ardsley rec programs live in unincorporated greenburgh - sometimes they pay a small surcharge as do village residents at the nature center

ardsley rec gets no money from the B budget

the ardsley library is paid for out of the ardsley village budget yet most of its users live outside the village in unincorporated greenburgh.

please revise your erroneous blog postings; 3/03/2008 7:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Do they get money from the A budget?; 3/03/2008 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Kaiman

If you insist on holding civilized conversations where you sign your name, you threaten this ecology by potentially having civil discourse break out! Tragedy! (Sarcasm is always dangerous in electronic form, for those quick to judge. That was gentle sarcasm.) Thank you for your thoughtful posting.

You make several points, which I will quote and then respond to:

Point One:
"I do not believe that there is a crises that requires an immediate amendment."

I AGREE. ENOUGH SAID!

Another point:
"I felt that Bernstein had standing to pursue his action and I felt that the Villages had standing to intervene."
YES HE DERTAINLY DID AND YES WE DID, THOUGH AFTER ALL THAT STURM UND DRANG, HERE WE ARE BACK WHERE WE STARTED, EXCEPT A LOT OF FEELINGS ARE HURT. NOT ALL LAWSUITS ARE GOOD IDEAS.

You say:
"I think we need time to obtain the considered judgment of the people."
YES, I AGREE. THOUGH THAT DOESN'T MEAN A REFERENDUM. IT MEANS REASONABLE AMOUNTS OF TIME.

You say:
"I do not believe
Finnerman precludes (a) a resident from having a non-resident as a guest or (b) the Town from participating in a program that requires the Town to have non-residents use its facilities in the same manner as its residents use the facilities of another jurisdiction"
UNFORTUNATELY, UNDER A RIGID INTERPRETATION, IT MIGHT. SO DOES IT HAVE TO BE HYPER-ENFORCED? YOU WANT POLICE CHECKING IDS OF GUESTS? THIS IS A NON-ISSUE.

You say:

"I believe all laws have a sense of reasonable attached to their interpretation unless otherwise provided. I would like to think Finnerman was passed to provide guidance, not to mark a line in the sand."
I AGREE. SEE MY POINT ABOVE.

Finally, you say:
"Third, I am concerned that an amendment of Finnerman could allow the exception to swallow the rule."
HERE, I LESS AGREE. ITS ALL ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION, AND THAT FLOWS INTO TRUST ISSUES.

You make another point:

"Many laws passed in haste will come back to haunt"
OH, YES INDEED. AGREED AGAIN. WE JUST FINISHED A MULTI-YEAR FIGHT TO DEFEND FINNERAN. I, FOR ONE, AM NOT EAGER TO CHANGE IT RECKLESSLY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM CHANGING IT, MIND YOU. BUT CAREFULLY.

So, what do we have here? A guy from Unincorporated made a lot of good points. A guy from the Villages agreed with almost all of them. It's a start, a small start, but here we are.

More tomorrow night!

Peter Swiderski; 3/03/2008 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear 5:23 PM,

I am not Mr. Sheehan and you would be very surprised if you knew.

3/3/08 1:11 PM; 3/03/2008 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: 8:19

Young Kaminer???????; 3/03/2008 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Swiderski,

"HERE, I LESS AGREE. ITS ALL ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION, AND THAT FLOWS INTO TRUST ISSUES."

Do you have any thoughts on this?; 3/03/2008 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: TWO BROTHERS
(Irving Gordon)

Two brothers on their way,
Two brothers on their way,
Two brothers on their way,
One wore blue and one wore gray.
One wore blue and one wore gray,
As they marched along their way
Fife and drum began to play,
All on a beautiful morning.

One was gentle, one was kind,
One was gentle, one was kind,
One was gentle, one was kind,
One came back, one stayed behind.
Cannonball don't pay no mind
If you're gentle or if you're kind,
It don't think of the folks behind,
Or of a beautiful morning.

Two girls waiting by the railroad track,
Two girls waiting by the railroad track,
Two girls waiting by the railroad track,
One wore blue and one wore black.
One wore blue and one wore black
Waiting by the railroad track,
For their lovers to come back,
All on a beautiful morning.

Ok, so it isn't a perfect fit but we're holding a Civil War in Greenburgh and in an area not zoned for war. True, I've got no investment in Greenburgh; I don't pay the taxes and, I'm not likely to use any parks anywhere but I "can't help but wondering where your minds have gone".

There is no way, law, comptroller opinion, judicial interpretation or otherwise that anyone can rationalize not preventing guests of residents to use the Town Pool and Town Tennis Courts (for a fee) wherever they hail from. East side, west side all around the Town. There is no way that children's sports teams should not be allowed to play in the league.
Come to your senses, people!

If there is some way to fix it, then fix it -- be it kindness, legislative change, or even just looking the other way. The tax increases ahead are not coming because of this childish diversion. Perhaps, for the sake of your largest investment, your home, you will recognize that it is more difficult to sell a home in a war zone than in an area where peace reigns.

Even though I don't have a horse in this race, I am concerned because you folks, named and anonymous, are taking up my blog space. Put this sick puppy to bed tomorrow night and if you, in unincorporated are not yet familiar with the word, "mensch", then perhaps you will settle for "this round is on you". Get over it and get on with your lives.

However, my view of this entire pageant is that it is not really about who can use or who has to pay. I view it as just another act in the still ongoing crusade to unseat Feiner, like a hydra with the head cut-off.

Like my interest in the Library (which was genuinely the opportunity to witness another municipal construction project lurching toward disaster), the similarity between the Library and the Finneran noise is that in both situations, supposed concerned Greenburgh residents were able to ignore an insipient disaster because it might provide the opportunity to give Feiner a bumpy ride.

This new "issue" is another cut from the same cloth: if Feiner/Town Board follows the law, he/they are scorned; if he/they doesn't follow the law he/they are scorned; if he/they tries to amend the law to allow the tennis bubble cash flow which will benefit the unincorporated budget, he/they are scorned.

I probably should have followed my own counsel and stayed out of these muddied waters but if my friends and neighbors insist on shooting themselves in the foot once again, I only ask that you drip your blood away from where I have to walk.

Having read these postings I cannot tear myself away from what the light at the end of the tunnel presages; unfortunately it is mounted on a high speed train heading directly at the town entire and the way out remains blocked.

On a more "personnel" level, I find myself fascinated watching the tag team match of Thomas Beckett and Marc Anthony being challenged by the Henry II and Brutus team. The more literate among you can do the casting.

While on Hillside Avenue, Clinton and Obama are not even on the same card, much less the main attraction.

The longer this goes on, the more I think of the 60's group, War (before Eddie Mae toured with them) and their hit, "Why Can't We Be Friends".

Why not?; 3/03/2008 11:28 PM
Anonymous said...: whoops, change "not preventing" above to preventing.

see how negativity can get you confused.; 3/03/2008 11:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Hal, there is no way that people should be allowed use of facilites that they are not taxed for. Come to your senses. As you have said in the past, you dont pay taxes directly, and your taxes included in your rent are small. That is not true for many of us, especially single family home owners. Our town taxes are high, and Mr. Feiner doesnt seem to care.

As to what constitutes use by non-resident, no, I dont agree with your interpretation. In any event, that could easily be fixed, WITHOUT GIVING AWAY THE STORE. Paul and you (his shadow) chose not to.; 3/04/2008 6:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Hal,

It is interesting you bring up the comparison to the library. In that situation also, Feiner attempted to strong arm and override concerns of residents. Had he tried discusseions, alternatives, etc. things might have been differnt.; 3/04/2008 6:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh Hal, stop with threats with guests. I hope all the police, fireman, town employees, etc. are looking for another place to belong this summer.; 3/04/2008 6:50 AM
Anonymous said...: here's some good advice - when ella preiser speaks turn off the sound - she is a proofreader who tries to pass herself off as a knowledgeable person about the town of greenburgh. to the contrary she hasnt been elected to anything, her committee never meets, she is an apologist for all things sheehan, she doesnt use the town parks, she doesnt have email and her purpose in life is just to get feiner for some perceived grievances.

bascially she lives in the greenburgh she moved to in 1964. the world has moved on. she hasnt. just look at the rags she wears.
she speaks for no one but all the haters and unreasonable people who only know what they are against.; 3/04/2008 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: when the tragic history of the new library is written
the record will show that ella "im against it" prieser said nothing to stop the train wreck because to do so would appear she was agreeing with feiner.

listen to her at your peril; 3/04/2008 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear 6:39,

You need a few more hours of sleep time, as did the Library's Board of Trustees.

What did Feiner do re the Library with regard to "strong arming".

I hope you are not referring to his support for Sunrise because that was only possible due to the stupidity of the Library Board of Trustees which said they didn't need the old town hall parcel. When the Trustees finally woke up at Sunrise, the sun quickly set.

The invitation to Sunrise was not, by itself, a bad idea; it being compatible with the neighborhood and the Library and it was an early on attempt to increase ratables.

If you are referring to something else, bring it on.; 3/04/2008 9:50 AM
Anonymous said...: A review of the A budget shows no payments to the the rec dept of the Village of Ardsley.

It is also clear that Ardsley's recreation and other facilites are used extensively by residents of unincorporated Greenburgh.

Its a shame that certain unincorporated residents keep ignoring these facts.

Get over your petty hatreds and find a way to work together so everyone can benefit.; 3/04/2008 10:08 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest»

Supervisor Feiner

Friday, February 29, 2008

AN OPEN LETTER TO UNINCORPORATED RESIDENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS PETER SWIDERSKI...

263 comments:

Contributors

Blog Archive

Links