Thursday, May 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another Paul Feiner initiative to make Greenburgh the most open government in the United States!
Be part of the Dialogue...participate...tell us what's on your mind...!
The views expressed in this blog are the personal views of the participants who post comments on the blog and are not those of the town, town employees or town government. The Supervisors views are his alone.
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(301)
-
▼
May
(30)
- Work Session Agenda 6/3 and summary of last week
- DOG PARK CONTRACT AWARDED
- ABANDONED PROPERTY TO BE DEMOLISHED
- WORK SESSION-TUESDAY...MINUTES OF LAST WORK SESSION
- LUXURY RENTALS MAY BE COMING TO HARTSDALE -250 CEN...
- 15-16 PEOPLE LIVING AT 206 WARREN, SUMMONSES WERE ...
- CAPITAL BUDGET RELEASED
- 3 HIT AND RUN FATAL ACCIDENTS--TOWNS RESPONSE...SP...
- FEINER TO CYCLE TO VERMONT TO RAISE FUNDS FOR SPEC...
- WESTHAB HEARING RESCHEDULED -TO BE REDESIGNED
- STUDY FOR 9A...3 FATALITIES ON ROAD...BICYCLE SAFE...
- MUSICIANS WANTED FOR E HARTSDALE AVE CONCERTS
- TUESDAYS WORK SESSION...MINUTES OF LAST WORK SESSION
- HIGHLIGHTS FROM TOWN BD MEETING
- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND ON ...
- TZ BRIDGE GUEST COMMMENTARY
- SUPER STOP AND SHOP PROPOSAL REVIEW STARTING
- SUPER STOP AND SHOP PROPOSAL REVIEW STARTING
- SENATOR COUSINS INVITES YOU TO A HEARING ON FUNDIN...
- SHOULD OFFICE PARKS BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
- work session agenda for tuesday..summary of last w...
- BID, GET GOOD DEALS...TOWNS INTEREST EARNINGS DOWN...
- SEARCH COMMITTEE HOLDS FIRST MEETING FOR COMMUNITY...
- WHY DOES IT TAKE NY TWO YEARS TO BUILD A BRIDGE AN...
- FROM TIMES UNION- ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE REPORT
- TOUR OF LIBRARY HIGHLIGHTS FUTURE EXPENSE: WINDOW ...
- GREENBURGH GETS GRANT FROM STATE TO LOOK INTO SHAR...
- NEW RESIDENTS RECEPTION..WORK SESSION AGENDA AND L...
- update: flood control study--E Hartsdale Ave
- editorial-albany times union---work for taxes
-
▼
May
(30)
35 comments:
Paul -- why are you having "pre-development" meetings with developers? Let them issue a press release if they want. Or meet with your planning and building staff.
The town departments need someone to supervise them, which is why we have a Supervisor. Leave the pre-construction stuff to the appropriate staff, and start supervising town operations. Just as one of many possible examples, when will the highway department be directed to clean storm drains and do basic street-sweeping? So much of the town looks horrible! Heck, I'd never build residences on Central Park Avenue - such a dumpy looking street.
250 N or S Central Ave?
The developers have already met with the planning dept. Applicants frequently provide me with a briefing before going public. I believe that the location is S Central.
PAUL FEINER
The location IS South Central, 250 North is Presser Park (Webb Field).
It is the parcel that backs up to Scarsdale Country Club and south of the nursery. There have been "for sale" signs on it for years.
Where is this property ?
No guessing?
paul - these unilateral pre development get togethers are a bad idea.
How much will the developers give to OUR fire departments along Central ave....Greenville and Hartsdale.
If you THE TOWN BOARD cut a deal I hope you will give these two fire houses the same consideration that you gave to Fairview.
.
there is nothing wrong with the supervisor meeting with applicants. It's refreshing that he reports the meetings. He is keeping the community informed.
Yes, and by meeting with them ant their lawywers alone, he can emphasize when his next fundraisers will be.
The new ethics laws prohibit Paul or anyone on the Town Board from accepting contributions from applicants. Why do you have to insult?
But what about their lawyers???
Their lawyers also can't contribute.
Really -- didnt some of the Dromore Road lawyers contribute to Pauls campaign???
Really -- didnt some of the Dromore Road lawyers contribute to Pauls campaign???
I hope that these developers will not listen to your cries to make a few rentals affordable.
You seem to favor affordable housing rather than housing that would bring in revenue.
Look at what the housing authority done to us who pay taxes.
They have a debt close to one half million dollars and they insist that they owe nothing.
Keep treating them with kit gloves and we all get it up our rears.
This service should not have been given to them by the chief of police.
Year in and year out he included the expense in his budget but no one checked his figures and where the expenses were going.
One citizen I won't mention names has asked so many questions about the police budget but You and the Board never wanted to listen.
Now we know where the public stands as far as the police budget goes so it's up to you to let our comptrollers staff give you their findings and for you and the board to act honestly.
I hope that these developers will not listen to your cries to make a few rentals affordable.
You seem to favor affordable housing rather than housing that would bring in revenue.
Look at what the housing authority done to us who pay taxes.
They have a debt close to one half million dollars and they insist that they owe nothing.
Keep treating them with kit gloves and we all get it up our rears.
This service should not have been given to them by the chief of police.
Year in and year out he included the expense in his budget but no one checked his figures and where the expenses were going.
One citizen I won't mention names has asked so many questions about the police budget but You and the Board never wanted to listen.
Now we know where the public stands as far as the police budget goes so it's up to you to let our comptrollers staff give you their findings and for you and the board to act honestly.
I thought the Town Board is fighting Dromore development. Isn't this in court?
Dear "really" incredulous:Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.The Town is defending the haphazardmanner in which the faulty zoning map misrepresented the zoning resolution which created it. This would be less of a problem were it not for town law which say the zoning map rules.
The Planning Department responded to queries by the developer before he purchased the parcel whether the zoning as shown on the map was correct and shown on this map, the zoning line allowed on the parcel, multi-family development. Yes said the Planning Department. So the developer went ahead and purchased the land, demolished the existing structure and prepared to go ahed with his intention to build 38 or 39 units. No said the Planning Department after the fact. The boundary line on the map is wrong; we've even changed it (illegally) already to correct the mistake and screw you.This is why the matter is in Court.And it is true that the developer's original attorney, Mark Weingarten, was close to Feiner. However, this had nothing to do with the purchase or any favors UNgranted by Feiner.On the contrary, Edgemont which feared further residential development because it would likely bring more school age children, was informally represented by Bob Bernstein, who though bearing no commission from the Town or even the Edgemont Community Council, drew up purchase contracts which, when executed, allowed him to buy the property from the developer. And this whole matter was discussed at "secret" meetings with the developer and the Town Council (Sheehan, Juettner, Bass and Barnes) to which Feiner was not invited.
The untoward behavior was solely the action of the Town Council.
There is much to come out at the trial; however, the relationship between Feiner, the developer and the developer's attorney is not even near a productive "smear". Feiner's position of record has never supported this development and it is only those who will be deposed by the Court who are seeking to muddy the waters.
Perhaps it is obvious but no one named "anonynmous" will be testifying.
once again juettner is present at the scene of the crime
juettner is a fraud and must be thrown out of office.
We know that the map was changed after the fact .This is something that cannot be hidden by those who want to be proven right.
It is also known that the map was changed without the knowledge of the ENTIRE board.The change was requested by one individual and the change was made illegally.
It's about time that luxury housing comes back to Greenburgh.
We should have more.
Hal, to say the developer purchased the land and then demolished the property is a little disengenious. At the time the developer purchased it, the previous house had already burnt down, and the demolition permit he did obtain -- to clear the property already destroyed -- clearly indicated single family zoning.
No intent to deceive was meant; I had forgotten that the demolition permit was to remove the remains of an already "demolished" house.
But certainly all would grant that the developer did not purchase the property with the intent of preserving the house, rebuilding the house or otherwise intending to enter the spec single family home business.
And what you, in turn, do to maintain accuracy in blogging is to overlook that what was denoted on the "permit" was information AFTER the purchase, after the map, after the due diligence.
Nor does the permit deny the basic premise of the action: the developer was guided by a town provided and town endorsed zoning map and by the information provided by the Town Planning Department and Buildings Department.
The problem for anonymous and others is that whereas all cows eat green grass, not all developers are evil.
Hal, HOw do you know what the developers intent was? Do you knwo that he did not in fact plan to build 1-3 Single family homes before he stumpled in to this situation?
I read crap like the letter from Anon 5:05 and I wonder. Is he nuts or does he think we are?
The developer said what his plan was and made application accordingly. No need to wonder about it. He wasn't thinking of a McMcMcMansion according to his filings.
Why can't the likes of 5:05 admit the facts even when they are so obvious?
No need to use four letter words. Hal's statement relates to the intent of the developer at the time the developer acquired the property. I asked how he knew that.
How did we know about what was with this land ,,well have you ever been to the zoning or planning board meetings.
This matter was in front of the board for a few meetings now it is in the courts.
There was no secret as to what was taking place and who changed the map without permission of the entire board.
Direct your questions to Sheehan maybe he will enlighten you as to what took place.
If the developer had intended to build 1-3 single family homes, there would be no controversy.
Hal,
How do you know what was intended?
Please explain. Would love to hear.
I am also concerned as to what Hal represents re Dromore. I note he is very careful not to represent what the original purchasor's intent was.
Since I am not the developer I can only answer either what I know about the developer's business or what he may have said.
In the first instance, it is my business to know what active real estate principals do. Developing single family homes is not the family business of the father, brother and brother. Nor is it my business.
And despite the suspect tone of the anonymous posters who are so very concerned, the "original" purchaser and the purchaser are the same despite the conspiratorial
tone of the post.
In the second instance, I asked after the fact and was told the purchase was to build a multi-family condominium project. This seems consistent with the public record.
Any other statement on my part would be heresay.
And, there is always the sworn affidavit of the developer as a source for those who are still "suspicious".
When you make that stop, please look at Mr. Bernstein's draft of contracts with Robert Bernstein as "purchaser" and the binding covenant not to make the contract contents public.
Don't you think that if the Town were really the buyer, that it should be let in on the deal?
Hal, If all you want to do is repeat the accustations of one party in the litigation, I can read that myself -- which interestingly, Mr. Feiner has chosen to put on the Town website (interesting idea for one party in litigation, to help publicize the adverseries position). Which I know you are smart enought to see through. So much for the Supervisor being agaisnt this.
You forget I have a "personal" interest in this matter having to do with the demand made to the developer not to tell me anything about the secret meeting.
The first I learned of it was when I read the affidavit and to me it was crystal clear that, what Bernstein said to others regarding what the meetings were about versus what the language of the draft contracts he drew up said, were in complete opposition.
But to me the legal action is not about the final result of the litigation but rather it is about an interesting question of law.
Whether the zoning map produced and provided by the Town (and the map defended by town code) is the final arbiter of zoning information or whether the resolution creating the zoning map is the final arbiter. This clearly needs a Court to decide.
The accusations made on this blog by me may not even be the accusations made by the developer.
All I am saying is that having read the draft contracts, I reach an entirely different conclusion about the outcome that would result were they to be executed.
I cannot understand any other reason for Mr. Bernstein to sign the contracts; he was not employed by the Town, he was not representing the ECC and the agreement gave him the right to convey the contract to anyone of his choosing or conclude the purchase himself. There is no representation that he would be signing on behalf of others.
Furthermore, why obligate the seller and the buyer to remain silent regarding the contract terms if the purchaser was somehow intended to be the Town.
There are too many mistakes to be the work of a superlawyer.
And I am only responding to the prods of anonymous posters.
As for the posting of the content on the town's website, this is more than a legal disagreement. This involves secret meetings held between the then members of the Town Council (Bass, Barnes, Sheehan and Juettner) to which the Town Supervisor was specifically and pointedly excluded (something that during that incendiary era he was accused of often doing) and more so than just background it was reasonable for him to respond by allowing the public to reach their own conclusions of why the Town Council went to a meeting(s) in Harrison on a Saturday afternoon.
The posting had little to do with any change in Town policy regarding the Town Board decision to conclude that the Zoning Resolution and not the map was the ruling factor. And the posting was done before the litigation commenced. All it did was make a controversial document available to the curious public and at a considerable saving of trees.
It is imperative for the town to keep us informed. This web site does a good job of doing that.
When will the Dromore case hit the courts.???
This will be very intresting to follow.
How many people on the council will come out with mud on their faces.
There are too many people involved which makes this outcome very interesting.
Post a Comment