ARE YOU OUT OF WORK?
IF YOU ARE NOT OUT OF WORK --WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ADVISE THE TOWN IF THERE ARE ANY JOB OPENINGS IN YOUR COMPANY?
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO INTRODUCE A GREENBURGH RESIDENT WHO IS OUT OF WORK TO THE KEY PERSONNEL OFFICER IN YOUR COMPANY, AGENCY?
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY JOB OPENINGS?
During the past few months I have been e mailing Greenburgh residents who are out of work information about job openings as soon as I learn of the openings. A few people have been helped. More and more people are losing their jobs and I want to step up the effort.
We need your help identifying available jobs that Greenburgh residents (your neighbors) can apply for. Before you leave work today - please speak to your personnel officers and ask them if there are any jobs out there that need to be filled.
If you are out of work and want to be notified of openings - please e mail me at pfeiner@greenburghny.com.
So far - most of the jobs that I have learned about have been low level. For example, the postal service has been hiring people for temporary jobs during the holiday season. The Census Bureau is interviewing people for jobs. However - most organizations need to function with top management. In Greenburgh, the Commissioner of Public Works & Deputy Commissioner of Public Works will be leaving. The town is starting to review resumes for these two key jobs. The Greenburgh Housing Authority (which is independent of the town) still has not hired an Executive Director-- another good job. If we all work together we should be able to help neighbors who need to find work.
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh Town Supervisor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
123 comments:
i would like to put juettner and sheehan out of work from the town board.
Maybe you can find new jobs for your energy coordinators, arts council sinecure, sculpture coordinator, private secretary etc.
Now that you are again playing your annual Santa Claus role, perhaps your re-election campaign war chests could offer some part-time employment opportunities for the benefit of those seeking work, extra money at Christmas or filling in understaffed Town Departments. Now this would be a good deed and provide one of your famous win-win opportunities.
What better use of those sizeable funds you solicited to run against the threat of no one THAN for YOU to use them to underwrite those "essential" positions which the public cannot do without when facing a two year 30+% tax increase. Even UNEMPLOYED homeowners must pay these taxes so I know that you are very concerned and won't hesitate to ease their burden. After all, it is not money coming out of your pocket, merely the money of those who made contribtions trusting you to do the right thing. Well, here's such an opportunity.
I eagerly await your announcement that YOUR various election campaign accounts are providing the grants to continue the "Arts Council" and the Hartsdale Sculpture Curator. Such largesse would convince taxpayers that you consider these positions really vital, even while the rest of the Town goes down the tubes.
And if you need some additional incentives to rid the taxpayers of your energy handmaidens, the following was posted under your "green conservation" topic.
hal samis said...
Dear Mr. Feiner:
I've heard that solar energy rebates from New York State are being curtailed sharply starting 2009.
Those wishing to maximize the existing level of available residential and commercial credits/rebates must have begun the process by the end of 2008.
If this is correct, how come little ole me knows about this and I'm the one bringing it to the attention of the blog public.
How come you and $30,000 worth of wasted taxpayer funds in the form of Dengler/Cartwright haven't pounded this message home? You are all so very concerned about energy conservation, right?
And since the Department heads have now met and discussed ways to reduce the Town's energy usage by 10% in 2009, please don't hold back on reporting the conclusions regarding how the Town IS going to reduce its energy usage going forward -- and what it will cost and how the Town will pay.
Readers come to the opinion that your posts all express only superficial interest and are just meant to convey the "impression" that you mean to take some action or that something will come of them.
Is the current example, "Going Green is Good Business", such an example? After all, when I proposed a green roof for the new Library, the idea was rejected.
And where and when is that bus to the inaugeration leaving?
12/04/2008 10:25 AM
(a portion of your introduction)
"Greenburgh's energy conservation office is sponsoring an interesting program this Thursday. Hope you can attend the meeting. Today all department heads met and discussed ways to reduce the town's energy usage by 10% in 2009.
If you would like to volunteer your time to this worthy cause-- volunteers are needed.
PAUL FEINER"
hal - we need you as energy czar!
Bus? Did I read BUS?!
I've not heard one tiny mention of a bus to the inauguration despite asking to be kept informed.
Has there been information about that trip that has escaped me?
Have we solicited enough money to pay for this trip?
Hal,
Is there a bus leaving? Is it the magical mystery tour bus? Do tell.
yes - its the greenburgh special
bus to nowhere
Dear Mr Feiner -
Several days ago I posted a question to you and have yet to receive an answer.
In you have forgotten or misplaced it, it was a simple yes or no question. Does the Town of Greenburgh carry "Errors and Omissions" insurance?
You have professed a commitment to "Open Government" and proudly point to having Board meetings and Work sessions on-line and broadcast. Why won't you grant me the simple courtesy of answering my question?
outside of the mailing and other administrative costs, if the 2.4 million is recovered, where are the damages to the town?
so the e and o policy exists, it may not be triggered if the taxes are recovered in full.
but feiner should answer the question.
How did this post turn into yet another Feiner bashing? I don't always (or often) agree with what our town government is doing, but the title of this post is indicative of Paul encouraging us all to help our neighbors in these trying times. Ho ho ho.
On craiglist for Westchester there are a variety of jobs posted in Westchester. Also Wikipedia has a listing of jobs in Westchester County that you can contact for jobs openings. :)
craigslist Westchester jobs: http://newyork.craigslist.org/wch/jjj/
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Westchester_County,_New_York
Paul
Why does the police dept. do tech-rescue training and why did they get a haz-mat unit when the fire dept's have these things already?
From what I hear the firefighters are well trained in these areas.
Please stop the duplication of services. I'm pretty sure the fire dept does not have a SWAT team, so let the police continue with there team.
someone would like to be the mayor of edgemont but the job has not been created yet.
edgemont incorporation has been discussed for half a century with one vote being held on it in 1967 (which of course was defeated).
one group that objected to incorporation was the naacp arguing that incorporation would create an alleged "all white enclave."
edgemont demographics have changed since 1967 although the african american population remains exceedingly small.
before the embers (or are they ashes) of edgemont incorporation are stirred, it would be interesting to know the views of the naacp (to the extent they are not a moribund organization) on incorporation.
efforts by the knollwood mayfair area to incorporation also failed in part by the claim by the then supervisor, anthony veteran, that the effort to incorporate was racially motivated.
Mayfair Knollwood tried to incorporate in order to stop the WestHELP facility from being built. Because the WestHELP population was expected to be (and was) overwhelmingly African American, the NAACP argued that the effort to incorporate was intended to exclude African Americans from the village population which, if, true, would have been illegal.
If Edgemont incorporates, it will not be because of any intent to exclude African Americans or any other segment of the population. It will be because Edgemont believes that its municipal services can best be delivered by a village government -- just as Hastings, Dobbs, Ardsley, Irvington, Tarrytown and Elmsford continue to believe that their respective municipal services can best be delivered by a village government.
Nor can it be argued that Edgemont's incorporation would be a way to avoid paying its fair share of town taxes to support the town's social service programs. Bernstein is seeking to require the entire town, including the villages, to pay those costs since those important services are available to the entire town's population.
If Edgemont were to draw its village borders along school and fire district lines, it would have one of the largest concentrations of "workforce" housing in the entire town. There are more than 900 apartments along Central Avenue in the Edgemont school district and Greenville Fire District. Living there (as well as elsewhere in Edgemont) are substantial numbers of moderate and middle-income African-Americans and Latinos, all of whom would be part of an Edgemont village. African-Americans are also well represented on Edgemont's Democratic committee, which would probably play a role in any incorporation effort. Edgemont's incorporation as a village would therefore be race-inclusive.
if bernstein is unsuccessful - then what happens to those important programs if incorporation is successful.
these so called important programs are seemingly rife with corruption.
you want a tdycc - let the ymca take over. thats a smarter way to go. has the ecc taken a position on that? its not always the answer to just seek the rest of the town (ie - villages) to pay for something they dont want and use sparingly.
race is ever present even in an obama world. even though edgemont's current incorporation move is seemingly race neutral, it will not be perceived that way.
on the other hand, its hard to believe a great number of edgemonters are going to incorporate over zoning and planning. and are they really going to be happy outsourcing the police to others?
if edgemont is upset (and they have cause to be), make political alliances with other voting blocks and oust the current regime. incorporation is a tough road especially in today's economy if edgemont taxpayers will be facing higher taxes. also - would you really be able to sell your home with a brand new government in place? would you move to such a place so fast?
what percentage of the edgemont school district is african-american?
African or African American families in Scarsdale School District?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone know how many black families live within the Scarsdale School district?
[+] Rate this post positively
04-10-2008, 06:24 PM
metropolistraffic
Not a member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 'Burbs of Manhattan
468 posts, read 224,632 times
Reputation: 89
Far few in between.
It's mainly rich whites and/or asians.
But, If you are making over 500,000 a year. I am sure you can fit in.
[+] Rate this post positively
04-11-2008, 05:22 AM
Frangi914
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Maui
151 posts, read 83,443 times
Reputation: 36
This might be useful
Scarsdale Union Free School District, New York
[+] Rate this post positively
04-11-2008, 06:42 AM
moxiecat
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
30 posts, read 16,487 times
Reputation: 15
We used to live in the Fox Meadow district and there was a small number of them. 2 were in my son's class and today they would be in the 7th grade/middle school. One of the fathers worked at a top investment bank and as a family they fit in well - the mom always looked great, played tennis, friendly, outgoing, very involved with the school, etc. definitely well-educated upscale African American family living in a gorgeous old house on one of the most expensive blocks.
They were extremely well accepted in and by the community- regardless of the ethnic background: Asian, white, Jewish, Christian. The other family was also affluent , in fact the mom is half white and actually grew up right in that district and either her dad or her mom was black. Very nice people too.
[+] Rate this post positively
04-14-2008, 09:22 PM
Ekulu
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
64 posts, read 33,868 times
Reputation: 14
Thanks a lot everyone for your responding and for the info provided.
[+] Rate this post positively
04-15-2008, 07:43 AM
mead
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
2,813 posts, read 2,169,967 times
Reputation: 424
Scarsdale is a fairly wealthy and educated town. In my opinion money matters more than race. You might feel out of place since there aren't too many black people there, however its not like the people in Scarsdale are going to be openly hostile to black people like in more middle-class white areas.
[+] Rate this post positively
04-16-2008, 01:38 AM
samyn on the green
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York
512 posts, read 279,239 times
Reputation: 191
They will be embraced
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they have the money to live in Scarsdale they will be embraced. In fact they may receive very special attention as the rare and treasured dealers of safe and cultured African-American diversity. If they are a wealthy, good looking, well spoken, cultured black family they are going to be local celebrities and their kids will be on the cover of each and every year book as an example of the great tolerance and diversity of the Scarsdale school district. Every Scardale resident on the block and in the area would love to consider this family a friend as it will prove to all others how tolerant, cultured and educated they truly are. Being friends with this family in Scarsdale would be akin to having the newest and most luxurious import SUV in Scarsdale. It shows that they have good taste, are educated, hold the high moral ground at all times and are just better than you.
[+] Rate this post positively
04-16-2008, 08:26 AM
rubygreta
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
358 posts, read 245,163 times
Reputation: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by samyn on the green
If they have the money to live in Scarsdale they will be embraced. In fact they may receive very special attention as the rare and treasured dealers of safe and cultured African-American diversity. If they are a wealthy, good looking, well spoken, cultured black family they are going to be local celebrities and their kids will be on the cover of each and every year book as an example of the great tolerance and diversity of the Scarsdale school district. Every Scardale resident on the block and in the area would love to consider this family a friend as it will prove to all others how tolerant, cultured and educated they truly are. Being friends with this family in Scarsdale would be akin to having the newest and most luxurious import SUV in Scarsdale. It shows that they have good taste, are educated, hold the high moral ground at all times and are just better than you.
Laugh out loud! But oh so very true. Scarsdale is a very liberal town. But the liberalism would disappear in two seconds if there was a proposal to bus 50 poor black kids from White Plains into their schools, or if their was a proposal to convert a single-family residence into a group home.
[+] Rate this post positively
04-16-2008, 05:41 PM
riley1999
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
16 posts, read 8,201 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubygreta
Laugh out loud! But oh so very true. Scarsdale is a very liberal town. But the liberalism would disappear in two seconds if there was a proposal to bus 50 poor black kids from White Plains into their schools, or if their was a proposal to convert a single-family residence into a group home.
I cannot help but laugh and agree with both posts...
[+] Rate this post positively
04-16-2008, 06:54 PM
metropolistraffic
Not a member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 'Burbs of Manhattan
468 posts, read 224,632 times
Reputation: 89
Well, To be honest. I doubt half of those on the bus would even show.
And, who wouldn't turn down a proposal for a group home? When you are paying 2,500,000 million for your house, I doubt you would want your neighbor to be 70 people. :x
As of the census[17] of 2000, there were 8,648 people, 3,368 households, and 2,377 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 2,964.1 per square mile (1,143.5/km²). There were 3,490 housing units at an average density of 1,196.2/sq mi (461.5/km²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 75.71% White, 2.41% African American, 0.07% Native American, 19.75% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 0.59% from other races, and 1.47% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.22% of the population.
If Edgemont were to incorporate, it will have to outsource its municipal services. While the Town of Greenburgh is one such source, and a likely one, other neighboring municipalities, such as Ardsley, may have reason to want to share services with Edgemont in order to reduce their own costs.
Edgemont's incorporation, however, does not turn on Greenburgh's current government. Therefore, there is no need for Edgemont to waste time forming "alliances" with other groups to "oust" anyone from local government. Edgemont has consistently been outvoted in its vote for town government officials. Other areas of Greenburgh, if they are as dissatisfied with town government as Edgemont appears to be, can join Edgemont if they wish, but incorporation will not depend on whether or not they do. It will depend on whether or not incorporation is in Edgemont's financial interest.
Had Edgemont incorporated three years ago, when its report on incorporation was completed, Edgemont would almost certainly have been better off financially than it is today.
As for the performance of property values in a newly incorporated village, one need only look to how well property values improved in Rye Brook, which was the last village to be incorporated in Westchester County. Many realtors today believe the Town of Greenburgh, with its unstable government, is a drag on property values in Edgemont.
Mr. Rosenblatt, who headed this effort to study incorporation, says he has concluded that only a real threat to the schools -- or some other crisis of equal proportions -- will persuade a majority of Edgemont residents to vote for change.
''There's always a catalytic event that drives becoming a village,'' he said, ''and there is no catalytic event here.''
In fact Edgemont's latest stab at independence is rooted in a series of relatively minor quibbles with Greenburgh town officials over trees unjustly felled and sidewalks perpetually covered in ice. Robert B. Bernstein, a lawyer who is a strong proponent of incorporation, says those spats suggest an Edgemont community yearning for something more.
''Among some people there is a sense of a need for greater civic identity,'' he said in a recent telephone interview, adding later, ''It's an odd community when you pay a fortune in taxes, but you don't elect a mayor or a council -- you have no say.''
Rosenblatt's comments were in 2005 -- before there was a 30% hike in town taxes, before there were drastic cuts in essential services, such as police, before Edgemont began to be plagued by a series of unsolved burglaries, before the town board refused even to consider making cuts to a number of non-essential services which don't even serve Edgemont residents, and before the town board decided to downzone parts of Edgemont without even waiting for the results of a comprehensive plan.
Edgemont residents are smart. If incorporation is proposed, they'll vote with their pocketbooks, and it really won't matter what people outside of Edgemont have to say.
Edgemont senior citizens want to stay in Greenburgh. We are happy with our town government. Go away and cause trouble elsewhere.
The issue of whether Edgemont will incorporate will be decided by all voters in Edgemont, including its senior citizens, many of whom spoke out against the town government and its proposed budget at the November 3 ECC meeting. The suggestion that Edgemont's senior citizens, as a group, are "happy with our town government" is a joke.
Not only are Edgemont's seniors outraged by the 30% increase in town taxes Feiner has proposed, but the cuts in police and most especially the elimination of non-curbside garbage pickup will hurt Edgemont's seniors more than it will hurt any other single group in all of unincorporated Greenburgh.
Many of Edgemont's seniors are not the happy campers Feiner once thought we were. You can count on that.
Edgemont taxpayers are fed up with you, Bob!
Your lawsuits have been costly to defend. We can't even get a revenue producing tennis bubble.
You are a revenue negative, not a positive for our town.
I do not think it is fair to beat up on Bob Bernstein. He has a first amendment right to express himself.
I think much of what he does is publicity motivated and disagree with most of his opinions. He is a good speaker but much of what he suggests is wrong.
In this economy Edgemonter's would have to be crazy to create a new government, to build a new Village Hall, to hire all the personnel needed.
NUTS!
Bob Bernstein's lawsuits haven't cost Greenburgh taxpayers any money - at least not yet. All of the town's legal expenses have been handled by the town's legal department. No outside lawyers have been hired. The idea that Bernstein's lawsuits have cost the town any money is a figment of Paul Feiner's imagination.
As for the tennis bubble, the problem there is that Feiner entered into an agreement with the tennis bubble company that said if the courts rule that Greenburgh's parks must be restricted in use to unincorporated Greenburgh, then unincorporated Greenburgh must pay up to $3 million to refurbish the courts and build the bubble. In addition, unincorporated Greenburgh would have to pay the tennis company for their supposed lost profits.
Bernstein felt that deal, which no one knew about, was NUTS, so he challenged its legality and the town agreed to put the deal on ice until the legality could be sorted out. Can you imagine what it would have cost unincorporated Greenburgh taxpayers in higher taxes if Bernstein had not known what to do?
My recollection is that when the EVEC costed out services, we were told that we had 2 police cars at all times in Edgmont. Someone will have to explin to me -- under Feiners plan, cutting from 7 sector cars, how many will we have -- less than one??
Fact is,
we in Edgemont will have either a second year in a row double digit tax increase, or a big decrease in police protection. that is was feiner is offeirng.
"we in Edgemont"
What is this? Does Edgemont think that they are the only ones receiving this increase? Only Edgemont will lose police protection?
Or is what you mean to say " we in Edgemont feel superior, therefore, we will not tolerate tax increases and a loss of services like the rest of you low-lifes. We are better and demand better!"
Since Bernstein stopped the tennis bubble taxpayers have lost about $200,000 a year in rent, a million dollars plus in tennis court infrastructure improvements, a clubhouse at Veteran park and lots of fun. Good going Bob!
No 7:13, I meant that the town isnt providing us with our moneys worth. I certainly dont mean other areas shouldnt form their own village also.
No 7:13, I meant that the town isnt providing us with our moneys worth. I certainly dont mean other areas shouldnt form their own village also.
Bernstein didn't stop the tennis bubble with his recent lawsuit based on the contract the town signed. He stopped the tennis bubble three years ago, when it would have built in a New York minute, because of his false description of the Finneran Law and his threats. You don't think it was false? Well, the appellate court said that it was false and deceptive to boot. Like it or not, the villages were right.
Now there will never be a tennis bubble, no matter what happens in the Court of Appeals. The financial meltdown means that nobody will lend financing and no sane company will take the risks of building a new luxury facility.
Thanks a lot Bob.
Anon at 9:39 has it backwards. Bernstein has been arguing since 2003 that the Finneran Law's requirements that only unincorporated area residents be taxed for town parks applies only to parks that are restricted in use to unincorporated area residents, which makes a lot of sense. After all, why should only unincorporated area residents pay for town parks that are open town-wide?
But the villages and the town took the position that no, the Finneran law requires that all town parks MUST ALWAYS be restricted in use to unincorporated area residents.
Well, once that town took that position in court, that killed the Tennis Bubble deal because the tennis bubble company said if the villages and the town were to win, then the company wouldn't be allowed to offer memberships to people in the villages and other places outside of unincorporated Greenburgh.
That had nothing to do with what Bernstein was arguing. That was the opposite of what Bernstein was arguing. And then, on top of it all, the town secretly agreed with the tennis bubble company that if it turned out that the Finneran Law really did mean that use must be restricted to unincorporated area residents, well then the Town would require unincorporated area residents to foot the bill for $3 million plus in improvements, plus other goodies.
Bernstein had nothing to do with the negotiation of that moronic clause, but he had everything to do with stopping it from being enforced.
In fact, Bernstein had suggested long ago that the town conclude the tennis bubble deal and place all the revenues from the deal in escrow until the courts determine whether the revenues belong to the A fund or the B fund. Had the town gone along with Bernstein's proposal, the deal would have been concluded.
The villages, however, refused to go along with that idea (and Feiner refused as well) because if the deal went through, it would mean that the tennis facility could be used by persons outside of unincorporated Greenburgh, which was precisely what the villages and the town were saying in court was not permitted under Finneran.
Who's to blame for the tennis bubble fiasco? Obviously certain individuals in the villages who didn't care that the town was losing a source of revenue, but first and foremost, the person most to blame is Feiner himself.
Come on. Cut out the spin. Bernstein is responsible for the town losing big dollars and the tennis bubble.
Why would anyone take a risk if Bernstein is going to file another lawsuit?
Bernstein has cost the town seven figures. His actions have increased your taxes.
job needed - a truth teller on the town's nutrition program.
is it losing money?
is it subsidizing those who live outside the town?
does it make a profit and if so, how much?
why is the town even in this business?
The town is without a doubt losing money on the nutrition program. According to the town's financial statements, in 2007 the program had expenses of $797.411 and revenues of $522,336, which is a net loss of $275,075. Greenburgh taxpayers that year paid $216,865, which meant that the town had to cough up another $58,100 to cover its losses. In 2008, the figures were even worse. Bernstein was right to expose this waste of taxpayer money. The town should either be increasing what it charges Eastchester and Mount Pleasant or it should stop selling these below cost meals and should instead cut its food and manpower costs and focus just on preparing meals for Greenburgh seniors. Either way, the town's nutrition program subsidizes meals sold in other towns.
thx - but why is the town even in this business?
The Town is in this "business" because Commissar Feiner believes that, to expiate his original sin of being born rich, he must give away everyone's money.
Hence the no show jobs give to tribal favorites and snow jobs regularly given taxpayers.
negativity..blah..blah...blah.
Stop the personal attacks!
why not just pay the mortgage of some folks? thats why feeding people is something the churches should do for their tax exemptions or be performed by others on a volunteer basis
gov't should not be in this racket.
lets stop the sheehanigans in 2009.
To 9:59 (also known as BB)
Isn't it amazing that even though Bernstein has started lawsuit after lawsuit, it is always the fault of the villages and Feiner. The courts have smacked Bernstein down with the result that we have lost the tennis bubble.
Sure Bernstein has been arguing since 2003 that the Finneran Law's requirement for TOV taxation applies only to to parks restricted to TOV residents. But he has been rewriting the Finneran Law, and he is still at it. It may make sense to him, but it is no more the law than it would be if TOV residents were taxed because a number of village parks are open to them. Funny thing about parks. They tend to be open space and they don't get used up just because some non-residents step into them. Nobody complained before Bernstein decided to go on his ego-trip, and everyone was happy.
The villages took the position that the parks were restricted to TOV residents, because that is what the Finneran Law says. Nobody was troubled by that restriction before, but once Bernstein began his lawsuits, it became necessasry for the villages to defend against Bernstein's rewriting of the Finneran Law.
Bernstein wanted the tennis bubble to be charged to the A budget so as to get some support for his case. The villages said that the proper charge was to the B budget. And yes, because of the Bernstein lawsuit, it meant if the village's view of the Finneran Law was upheld as being correct then the tennis bubble couldn't sell memberships to non-TOV people. Bernstein's suggestion that revenues be placed in escrow is another one of his deceptions because if the court ruled against Bernstein (as should have been predictable) then there could not have been non-TOV memberships. The escrow suggestion is a typical Bernstein evasion.
The solution was to have an amendment to the Finneran Law to give the town board some flexibility. Bernstein opposed that. And after the court ruled against Bernstein Feiner immediately proposed that the town request the legislature to pass such an amendment during the 2008 session, but Bernstein's friends (Bernstein was ill at the time) yelled and screamed not to have such an amendment and stopped the possibility of an amendment. Now we have nothing.
I remember that the villages were willing to be cooperative all along, and were certainly going to give their support to the amendment. The hold-up was among the usual negative bunch, meaning Bernstein and his friends.
So now we have nothing. With financing being as it is, we have probably lost the tennis bubble forever. Tnose benefits were all for unincorporated Greenburgh, not for the villages. Too bad that to Bernstein only his strutting ego counts. Don't be fooled by his trying to blame others.
Someday we should calculate how much money and benefits Bernstein has cost us.
4:31,
I support Bernstein, and all I ask for is either the villages pay teh parks and rec part of the budget or they not be able to use parks and rec. Sounds fair to me. No, I dont want Finnerman amended to allow villages to pick and chose --- if you want to use, you pay.
Anon at 4:31 wants to have his cake and eat it too.
He says the Finneran Law means that the tennis bubble can't sell non-TOV memberships. Well duh! If that's really true, and I gather Bernstein thinks otherwise, then Feiner should have been proposing an amendment to the Finneran Law the day that the tennis bubble deal was first proposed. But he didn't. Was Feiner simply prepared to violate the law? Do you really think Sportime would have invested big bucks in Greenburgh knowing that Feiner was violating the law?
Now Anon at 4:31 says sure, the villages would have supported an amendment to Finneran, to allow for non-TOV use of town parks, because it's no sweat off their noses to have unincorporated residents pay exclusively for town parks that are open town-wide.
Doesn't 4:31 realize how shallow and self-serving that sounds to those of us in the unincorporated area?
And no, 4:31, it's not the same as allowing TOV residents to use village parks. That's a choice your village government has a right to make, just as they have a choice to restrict their use. And if you don't like the choice your village government makes, you can vote them out at the next election.
That's not so for those of us in unincorporated Greenburgh. I support Bernstein and hope he wins.
Bet yah that villages want cake was written by Bernstein!
Bernstein supports Bernstein. If anon is Bernstein he also supports Bernstein!
The trouble with Anonymice 4:58 and 6:10 is that they think all there is to this is "I don't want you playing with my toys."
I doubt that the villages give a damn about using TOV parks. They have their own (and they aren't as anal retentive as 4:58 and 6:10 are). It is the Town's Recreation Department that has asked to have non-TOV residents participate in TOV programs in order to fill out missing slots, so that the programs can be economic FOR THE TOV RESIDENTS. The slogan about cutting off your nose to spite your face was made for 4:58 and 6:10.
The reason that the Town Board didn't talk about an amendment originally was fear of Bernstein's bluster and threats. When the appeals court ruled against Bernstein the Town Board finally felt their cojones. But even then, instead of proposing the necessary amendment Feiner, as usual, set up a citizens committee, and therefore there will never be an amendment.
For those who are happy to lose the tennis bubble and all the goodies that it would have brought to the unincorporated area, you can give Bernstein a hug. For those who would have liked the tennis bubble, you can figure out what part of Bernstein's body to address, and not with a hug.
For my part, I go elsewhere to play tennis in the winter. Greenburgh is not the only game in the county.
9:35 - Your comment is pretty lame. If the villages eat cake comment was written by Bernstein, more power to him! Whoever wrote it really knows how to write. It was damn good and right to the point.
The notion that the Town's Recreation Department wanted non-TOV residents to have access to town parks "to fill out missing slots so their programs can be economic" for TOV residents is a pile of hooey.
This is the same Parks and Rec Dep't that insists that its sales of meals to Mount Pleasant and Eastchester makes a "profit" while the town's financials show otherwise, Mike Kolesar says it ain't so, and the town hasn't produced any records that show a profit.
On top of that, when the committee looking into the Finneran Amendment asked to see what evidence there was that "slots were being filled" with non-TOV residents to make programs "economic," it learned that the amount of money that came in from non-TOV residents was less than $10,000!!
So much for making TOV's parks and rec programs "economic."
As for those nasty hate-filled comments against Bernstein, I can only assume they are being made because he (or whoever is speaking for him) has really nailed those who idiots who blew the tennis bubble deal. Bernstein doesn't deal in "bluster and threats." He files claims in court that seem to have legal merit. Otherwise, they would have been dismissed long ago.
To those who said that the complaints only started with Bernstein, I would say the complaints started with more and more abuses of Finnerman, including the purchase of Taxter Ridge and allowing some Village residents use of Veterans. These decisions by Feiner have exacbated the situation. The Taxter Rdige acquissition has been divisive.
It's the structure of the Town itself which is divisive.
Feiner merely uses the legal structure to divide village and non-village residents from one another - hoping no one will recognize how he is personally, and with help from his friends, driving Greenburgh into a ditch.
and edgemont incorporation will lead to ?
as for veterans park - it needs millions of dollars in repairs. where is that supposed to come from?
unincorporated greenburgh is a fiscal basket case.
it should really consider filing for municipal bankruptcy in order to restructure itself.
the mantra of the day is shared services - not the go out on your own posturing advocated here.
hey edgemont, if the town board stinks, your only real answer is to make the case to others in the town and vote a new slate into power.
budgeting by lawsuit is not very effective.
The town has a AAA bond rating from S&P. Why would the town file for bankrupcy? AAA is the best rating a local government can receive.
The Town received its AAA rating from S&P in large part to the adopted financial goals and polict statement that the Town Board adopted in December 2007. What does that policy statement say?
For one, the Town will not use fund balances to offset / lower the costs of the operating budget. Given that the tentative budget already proposes using about $3.8 million and that amount is likely to increase by the time the budget is actually adopted, if I were a betting person, I'd bet bye-bye AAA rating.
Second, the policy states that any proceeds from the sale / disposition of Town owned property will be set aside and used for open space. Not this proposed budget. $750,000 in assumed revenues from the disposal of various (which ones - no detail provided) parcels is included in the Town Entire budget. This "helps" keep the otherwise double digit tax increase "down" to 7.8% for unincorporated Greenburgh - still about or more than twice the rate of inflation and no new services are being provided and in fact certain key services are being reduced. A vote for this particular budget gimmick is a vote against open space and any incumbent running for any elected office, even dog catcher, can't run away from that.
the greenburgh town board
a/k/a the board that cannot say no
a/k/a the board that knows how to run away from every probelm
woe is us.
The town should be proud of its very high bond rating and strong fiscal management. Some people are just jealous!
Paul Feiner anonymous posting alert! 1:05 is definitely his writing style.
and when it comes to making the hard budget choices
feiner and his board are also anonymous
we need leaders in this crisis
I'm tapped out from my post on the Library Grand Opening topic.
Just a few scattered comments in response to what I'm reading here.
Feiner agreed to vote for the Comprehensive Plan (the funding in the 2008 budget) given the assurance that revenues from the tennis bubble would be forthcoming.
Without getting into the argument over the need for the Comprehensive Plan here, let me point out that part of the Town's history of poor financial management is the belief that god, not the Town Board, looks out for Greenburgh.
This does not always work, witness the lack of insurance in the falling tree settlement and the unanswered question elsewhere whether or not the Town carries errors and omissions insurance. But the Town Board, especially the Supervisor of 20 years (some argue 6 months experience repeated 40 times), fail to recognize that things don't always fall into place or in the place invented by necessity.
Thus we have a Comprehensive Plan funded by taxpayers and not by tennis bubble revenue. We have a Library that is committed to $200,000 of spending that is "supposed" to be received from grants in the future. There is no money left in the budget should any of these grants not materialize in whole or in part.
The Library has not reserved $240,000 for a "delay" claim filed by one of the contractors. Should this be negotiated or reduced, there is no money left in the budget to pay for this settlement. The Town Board is keeping their fingers crossed that this too goes away.
The Fortress Bible Church lawsuit verdict is not far off. No one can ascertain how much the Town Board has laid claim to from overused fund balances to pay the due bill.
Every indication for the 2010 budget, yes 2010, is that it too is going to be a whopper of an increase and by that year there will not be any excess fund balances to tap -- they have been and are being used up for buying down the 2008 and 2009 budget tax increases. How many years can you get credit for not building a new Courthouse? There is no replenishment of funds underway because there is not going to be increases in mortgage tax, sales tax and there certainly are going to be more of the outstanding 700 or so cert cases settled. Not to mention general increases in spending and renewing the Xposure program(s) AND the contribution to the first year of "feeling the crisis" effect upon NYS Retirement System investment losses is going to a financial nightmare. Of course, offsetting all of this is that Regula and Kapica will be long gone.
So, unless god plans to operate a gold mine or oil well in Greenburgh, the idea of a higher power stepping in to save taxpayers from their mistakes and years of "hiding their heads in the sand" managment style of the Town Board, we're in a helluva lot of trouble ahead.
So, all this is my stylistic way of setting the stage for what clearly follows from earlier comments made by others. If we can get beyond "who can" or "who cannot" use the proposed tennis bubble, as of right, as of Finneran, as of law...there was one serious problem that Bernstein et al addressed regarding the welcoming of SportTime to Greenburgh.
This was the dummy's guide version of a contract prepared by the Town Attorney. Mr. Lewis, who should be given no assignment more taxing than being the classroom monitor for the Town Board meeting, actually signed off on a contract that, if executed, would be now costing the Town in excess of $2 million (from memory) if SportTime did not proceed with construction as assuredly was and would be the case. God, through her Agent, Bernstein, intervened and the Town was forced to back-off. The point is, over and beyond the A and B issues, that the contract reopened, the contract itself was a defective and dangerous bit of business and should never have made it to the finals.
And, not to belabor an already sore point but in the spirit of full disclosure which was not so fully understood at the time, one of the steadfast proponents of tennis at Town Park was the husband of one of those tennis positions I now seek to eliminate as a Town funded expense (the providing of private tennis instruction creates a NET loss of $30,000 to the Town). I mention this in the spirit of full disclosure.
So, the connection to this blog topic is hereby solidified by the question: does anyone know of jobs for should-be unemployed tennis instructors? Or would be if this were anyplace but Greenburgh.
The second issue that I want to raise is: now that the rating agencies themselves are being more cautious (see the Sunday NY Business section article on Moody's) and, if the rating agencies were fully apprised of the abandonment of the Town Fund Balance Policy and the declining sales and mortgage tax revenue AND the continued loss of property taxes from a shit load of outstanding unsettled cert cases, etc., would the Town learn that its AAA rating is no longer in place? And if the Supervisor were already aware of this, would he tell us? Hopefully none of the rating agencies read this blog.
The point to take away is, Kolesar and Talamani notwithstanding, the Town is not fiscally well managed and the day of reckoning is just around the corner. Like those horror movies that tell the babysitter that "the call came from within the house, get out!", the problem is seated on the dais at Town Board meetings.
This time next year, hopefully we can look forward to three new Town Board elect members.
I won't comment on Bob Bernstein's role in the tennis bubble history, but I do agree that he was right in arguing against the provision that would have allowed Sport Time to get several million dollars if the Taxter Ridge case were overturned -- as it predictably was. That contractual provision showed a gross legal sloppiness that should not be ignored, even though circumstances will probably save the town from its potentially disastrous consequences.
herb
the same is true of the town board giveaway to the unincorporated library of the old town hall property.
how do the villages get their share?
The uninformed individual from the villages who keeps insisting that there was a town board giveaway of the old town hall site to the "unincorporated library" should file suit if he or she really thinks something improper took place here.
In the process of looking into the matter, the individual may learn that the entire town owns the library, which includes the building and the land upon which it sits. That means that village taxpayers, who've paid nothing for the library itself, actually have a 45% ownership interest in the library. Whoop-de-do!
The reason the town board's letting the library have use of the old town hall site was not a "giveaway" was that the town board can't legally give away property unless it is not being used for a municipal purpose. A library is a municipal purpose. If it's legal for the Village of Ardsley to operate a library, then it's legal for the Town of Greenburgh to do so too. Therefore, allowing the town library to use the old town hall site is perfectly legal.
With so much wrong going on in the Town of Greenburgh these days, what with the entire town subsidizing sales of meals to seniors in neighboring towns, the entire town making six-figure gifts of town revenues to a fire district, and the entire town at risk of a multi-million dollar judgment in favor of Fortress Bible Church, not to mention numerous other entire town wastes of taxpayer revenue, you'd think you village residents would have more important things to worry about than this.
I also seem to recall Kraus suggesting we use a professional to supervise the construction. Instead we used Al Regula, famed for supervising the construction of the public works garage, too short for the trucks.
unincorporated greenburgh's library is using town property that is owned in part by the villages) at no charge. this is wrong. this is a giveaway. there was no hearings held on this. there was no resolution to allow this. no legal opinion was obtained to support this action. it was simply a theft in broad daylight by the town board. the village officials committee agrees that the last statement.
ardsley's libary sits on land leased to it by its owner. to compare ardsley's libary to unincorporated's library is absurd.
stop the theft.
Mr. 1:26 says all the things that Bernstein is saying at meetings and in the newspaper, so I guess it is Bernstein blogging away. Even the gratuitous and snobbish insult is Bernstein's method of debating. Why not come out and identify yourself? And don't deny that you are it.
Sure the town owns the old town hall property. But it was paid for from the A budget. It has been handed over to the library which by law must be financed through the B budget.
The villages don't have a 45% ownership in the library. You can be cute and say that the villages own 45% of a part of the parking lot. But that is Bernstein style reasoning.
The simple fact is that even though under the law the B budget is required to pay for the library, by turning over the old town hall to the library for a parking lot (a property that could have been sold for $3,000,000 which would have gone into the A budget) the villages have paid $1,350,000 (45% of $3,000,000) for the library.
Maybe someone will sue. Or maybe the villages aren't as litigation-crazy as Bernstein.
That uninformed villager who keeps making allegations about a "theft" continues not to know what he or she is talking about. The statement that "unincorporated Greenburgh's library is using town property that is owned in part by the villages at no charge" contains one misstatement after another.
First of all, "unincorporated Greenburgh" doesn't have a library. The Town of Greenburgh has a library. Its cost is taxed to unincorporated Greenburgh taxpayers. Unincorporated Greenburgh is not a legal entity. It doesn't own anything.
Second, the library is not using town property that is "owned in part by the villages." The villages do not own any property, in whole or in part, with the town. The villages therefore have no legal interest whatsoever in the town's library or even the land upon which it sits.
Finally, the statement that the library is using the property "at no charge" is ridiculous because the library is owned by the town and gets to use at no charge the land upon which it sits because that too is owned by the town. The fact that the Village of Ardsley leases property for its library is interesting but irrelevant. The point that was made earlier about Ardsley was that running a library is a municipal function just as running a library is a municipal function for the Town of Greenburgh. It makes no difference that the town happens to own the land upon which the town library sits and the Village of Ardsley happens to lease the property upon which its own library sits. That was Ardsley's choice.
The uninformed writer who keeps making these silly assertions about Greenburgh's library should really do his or her homework and spend his or her time on those financial matters which actually do affect village residents in the town of Greenburgh. There are plenty of them.
I don't recall Bernstein saying anything at all at meetings or in the newspapers about this library issue. Maybe he has, but this really hasn't been one of the issues he's been talking about. However, I do recall Town Attorney Tim Lewis issuing a legal opinion which was read at a town board meeting saying precisely what Anon at 1:26 and at 3:21 is saying. The Town couldn't by law have sold the old town hall parcel unless the Town Board determined that it was "surplus," meaning it wasn't needed for any municipal purpose. But once the Town Board decided the property could be used for the library, it would have been illegal for the town to sell it.
Here's another way to look at it. The Town of Greenburgh owns property on Main Street in the Village of Dobbs Ferry. The Town wants to sell it. But if an argument can be made that the Town needs the property to fulfill the county's mandate for affordable housing, maybe the Town would have to keep it and send out an RFP to a developer to develop the property for the TOWN for affordable housing.
Alternatively, the Town could just sell the property since it was acquired by tax foreclosure and even though affordable housing is desirable, this particular parcel is really not needed for any town municipal purpose.
NEGROES OBJECT TO VILLAGE PLAN; Greenburgh Incorporation Is Bitterly Contested
By MERRILL FOLSOM Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jan 22, 1967. pg. 60, 1 pgs
Abstract (Summary)
WHITE PLAINS, Jan. 21-- Negro leaders fear that the proposed establishment by referendum on Friday of a new incorporated village in the southeast corner of the sprawling town of Greenburgh will perpetuate another "lily white" area of suburbia.
what bs - tim lewis is now our resident legal scholar?
former judge herb rosenberg has looked at this library issue as well as the enabling statute and has opined that unincorporated's library should pay rent or other compensation to the town for its use.
the town board simply gave a multimillion dollar parcel away to one part of the town - now you would think mr bernstein would object to that since he is complaining about the town allowing taxter to be used by everyone but paid for only by unincorporated greenburgh.
the real red herring is the assertion that unincorporated owns nothing - it has prescriptive rights in its parks and other facilities even though it doesnt have formal title.
one thing it also has is a monopoly on the town board's attention even though the villages pay the salaries of the key town officials for which they get little or nothing in return as evidenced by the giveaway of the old town hall site to unincorporated greenburgh's library.
the matter should be referred to the state comptroller for a formal legal opinion if there is any doubt as to herb rosenberg's cogent analysis.
Who's "litigation crazy" here?
This past Friday's Scarsdale Inquirer reports that a resident of the Village of Irvington has sued the town for allegedly illegally charging the entire town instead of only unincorporated Greenburgh for the cost of the police marine unit, the for the cost of the police SWAT team,for the cost of auxiliary police, and for the cost of advanced life support services, which total in excess of $1 million.
Even though these services are provided town-wide, the Irvington resident who sued says that a county statute governing police costs mandates that all such costs must always be charged to a town's unincorporated area, no exceptions, even if the town agrees with the villages to provide them with services.
That's how one village resident wants to have his cake and eat it too. As a village resident, he likes getting the services (rumor has it the litigant is a member of the police SWAT team), but he insists that only unincorporated must pay. That sounds familiar.
All Bernstein has said is that parks open townwide should be paid for townwide.
If that renouned legal scholar from Dobbs Ferry believes that Town Attorney Tim Lewis is wrong, perhaps he can persuade that distinguished resident from the Village of Irvington to amend his suit to add the library claim? Failing that, it's a free country -- why doesn't Mr. Rosenberg register a complaint with the state comptroller? Other citizens in Greenburgh have done so -- that's what led to the WestHELP audit and opinion that the town's actions were illegal. Why hasn't he done so here? He should.
And what's this nonsense about unincorporated Greenburgh having "prescriptive rights" in "its parks and other facilities" even if it "doesn't have legal title." This is New York State, pal, not Bolivia. Parts of town don't have "prescriptive rights."
veteran park sits on land owned by the village of ardsley - yet no taxes are paid for this land to ardsley or its school district - that would be fine if the park was open to all - but its not.
so, why isnt unincorporated paying taxes to ardsley village and school district?
a park that is limited in use should not get a free ride from those taxpayers who are excluded.
didnt tim lewis tell the town board they could fork over $100,000 to the fairview fire dept under the pretense that a townwide benefit was served?
and isnt the ecc objecting to mr lewis' fiction?
The renowned legal scholar from Dobbs Ferry doesn't waste his time registering complaints at the behest of sarcastic gripers like Anonymouse at 3:59 PM. The renowned legal scholar registers his views with the courts, and usually wins.
Memo to renouned legal scholar: if you plan on challenging the town's decision to allow the library to use the old town hall property, you might have a statute of limitations problem.
what decision?
show me the resolution?
You might start with the town board bond resolution that led to the May 2005 referendum. It called for the construction of a $19.9 million facility on both the existing site and the site of the old to be demolished town hall. None of that bond money was to be paid to the town for the use of the old town hall site.
thats bunk -
the enabling statute for the library governs what the B budget has to pay for - state law does not allow town land to be used for only one part of the town at the fiscal expense of another part
there was no declaration of a municipal purpose in forking over the old town hall site to the library free of charge.
to believe the town board did anything either legal or proper here is to defy history and experience.
Anon at 7:49 doesn't seem to understand that Greenburgh's town library is open to all town residents, including all town residents who live in the villages. This is use of town land by all town residents, including those in the villages, at the sole expense of residents in the unincorporated area. There's no plainer municipal purpose and no, the town board doesn't have to "declare" it. It's obvious. If anyone has a right to complain about tax unfairness here, it's residents in the unincorporated area.
Dear "town library welcomes villagers too"
And the village's libraries welcome residents of unincorporated Greenburgh. By your reasoning, shouldn't the village libraries be paid out of the town's A budget.
Or is this a one-way street.
No, village libraries are paid for by village taxpayers because village residents elected village governments that chose to have libraries. Had village government not created their own libraries, then under state education law, their residents would be required to pay their fair share for town libraries. Greenburgh's law, which requires that only unincorporated residents pay for the town library, was enacted based on the assumption (which was wrong) that all the town's villages had their own libraries. In fact, at the time, Ardsley and Elmsford did not have libraries of their own.
re: Had village government not created their own libraries, then under state education law, their residents would be required to pay their fair share for town libraries.
more bunk - elmsford had no library for decades.
ardsley had no library for the period after ww2 thru 1971.
they had no obligation to one dime to anyone - only if the elected to do so as elmsford did with greenburgh and as it now does with ardsley.
libraries are really now in the category of nice but not necesssary.
and what greenburgh now has is a huge eyesore that will increasingly be seen as the costly white elephant it is.
Anon at 11:35 must be getting his or her research from Sarah Palin.
State education law mandates that all town residents in New York must pay for town libraries within their towns unless their villages have libraries of their own, in which case town taxpayers in those villages are exempt. The reason that law doesn't apply in Greenburgh is that Greenburgh never had a library of its own and wouldn't have had a library of its own, until the state legislature intervened and authorized Greenburgh in 1960 to have a library of its own - but only on condition that none of the town's six villages had to pay for it -- even if Elmsford and Ardsley had no libraries of their own. Why did the legislature do this? Because the residents of unincorporated Greenburgh who lived in Fairview were NOT permitted to use the libraries in the town's villages because they were "not residents," and because the Town of Greenburgh's government, which was dominated by village residents, refused to enter into an agreement with White Plains to allow unincorporated area residents from Fairview to use the library in White Plains -- because state law would have required village residents to pay their fair share of the costs, which they refused to do.
After enactment of the Greenburgh library statute, between 1960 and 1968, Greenburgh's library was so p-poor it was run out of a private home.
To 11:04 Anonymouse
Yes, village residents elected to have village governments. How smart and prescient of them to get out of Greenburgh, even if it was more than 100 years ago. Being separate from Greenburgh is a boon.
So quit chasing us with your expenses. We have our own, whether it be libraries or parks. Make up yor mind -- the law or equity. If it is the law, then pay for your expenses as the law requires and shut up. If it is equity then admit that you can use our parks and libraries without paying for that privelege and that the villages pay for a heap of town expenses for services that the villages don't get.
But I am sure that you will argue the law when it benefits you, and argue equity when it benefits the villages. See why I am happy that our forefathers and mothers were smart to get the hell out of Greenburgh.
And the 12:03 blogger writes the usual revisionist history associated with you-know-who, and I won't bother correcting him, because it is like punching the clown who always comes back up.
most of edgemont uses the scarsdale library. the constant harping about the greenburgh (read fairview) library is the cover of edgemont in its dirty deal to make sure its school district and its recreation camp never mix with fairview or perhaps anyone else in unincorporated greenburgh.
now you know why there are two community centers in greenburgh - one in fairview and one in veteran park.
what other town in westchester is so segregated?
in 1967 when edgemont wanted to leave, integration and busing was on the agenda.
very little has changed since then- its just much more subtle as the parties worked out their own municipal "gentleman's agreement."
"Gentlemen's Agreement" doesn't know what he or she's talking about.
Edgemont today is much more racially diverse that, say the Village of Ardsley has ever been. For example, since 1967, more than 900 apartments were built along Central Avenue in the Edgemont School District, providing homes to a racially and economically diverse group of residents. There are also African American families in all of Edgemont's other neighborhoods.
Those Edgemont residents who use libraries have a wide variety to choose from, including Scarsdale, White Plains, Yonkers, and even Ardsley. There is no evidence that most Edgemont residents use the Scarsdale library. At least 50% of Edgemont's population is on the Ardsley side of Central Avenue, which makes libraries in Greenburgh (when it reopens, Ardsley and Yonkers much more convenient.
Edgemont is not the reason for a community center at Veteran Park. Except for a few programs for seniors, that community center offers nothing for Edgemont residents. It never had and likely never will.
The camp for Edgemont kids operates at Edgemont High School by a private company. The town does not operate any camps at any Edgemont schools. The only town camps are operated at schools located in the Greenburgh Central school district. There are therefore no town-run camps operated at any location convenient to Edgemont parents.
Thank you 2:39. There are a few people (or maybe it is just one person) who have a hang-up and see racism and discrimination every place.
The TDYCC was created especially for the Fairview community with a federal grant from HUD, aimed especially for the poor community that was Fairview. The Town created the Department of Community Resources expressly to serve that community's needs. That wasn't discrimination. That was a recognition that this community needed resources that other communities, such as Edgemont didn't need.
I don't live in Faitview or Edgemont, but I recognize that these communities are different and that isn't discrimination or racism.
african americans in edgemont?
the statistics say its beyond minimal.
after 4 decades of the tdycc, if it has not worked to get fairview out of poverty- then its failed.
this whole disingenous discussion of poor fairview only serves to prove that kids from everywhere but fairview and edgemont are lost in the sauce- where is their department of community resources?
this department is a cover for a cesspool of jobs - show and no show at the center and elsewhere. its a source of strife and division in the town. it is a relic from another era.
what other town has a dept of parks and recreation and another that does the same thing with numerous department heads under the phony name of department of community resources?
if its fairview's facility -why is the rest of the town paying for it? again - edgemont pays to keep a lid on things it needs from fairview - in other words - to stay out of edgemont's main business.
edgemont has even joined forces with scarsdale to get even further away from greenburgh and its fellow unincorpated ilk by providing money to the scarsdale teen center.
why is everyone so afraid of admitting what is black and white?
again - name another town with a set up like greenburgh?
must be the same forces at work in calling the depression a recession.
its called denial.
Anon at 4:07 has his or her facts all wrong. Edgemont is not racially segregated. It has more African American residents than the Villages of Ardsley and Hastings combined. Edgemont's Dem committee has more African American district leaders than all the town's villages combined. Edgemont is not paying for TDYCC to keep "a lid on things it needs from Fairview." Edgemont is paying for TDYCC because the Town has taken the position that only unincorporated Greenburgh pays for TDYCC and Edgemont is part of unincorporated Greenburgh, as is Hartsdale, North Greenburgh, Mayfair Knollwood, and Parkway Homes, to name just a few of unincorporated's neighborhoods, all of which pay for TDYCC. Many in Edgemont believe, however, that because TDYCC's services are provided town-wide, that they should be paid for town-wide. Many residents of unincorporated Greenburgh who live outside Edgemont share that view.
That said, it is wasteful for the town to operate two sets of recreational facilities, one by Parks and Rec, and the other by Community Resources, and there are many who feel that practice should end.
so why does the practice continue?
again - what town in westchester has the same duplication of services as the town of greenburgh?
btw - a democratic district leader can live anywhere in the town. an edgemont resident can be a leader for tarrytown.
now, the statistics dont lie - edgemont has no appreciable african american community. that hastings or dobbs or ardsley can do better is beside the point.
its probably not race - its more economics now.
but edgemont is part of the unincorporated area and to deny it has made an arrangement with fairview's leaders on the tdycc and the library is naive.
now that taxes have skyrocketed, some in edgemont are questioning the deal made decades ago - but thats very new.
Anon at 4:44 is just being silly. Who in Edgemont could have ever made any deal with anyone in Fairview about anything? These are two neighborhoods. And yes, Edgemont's African American Dem district leaders do live in Edgemont. Why would you suggest otherwise except to be malicious?
My recollection is Edgemont actually voted against the library.
Dear 4:03 -
Sovereign governments are not subject to the tax levies of other sovereign governments. If they were, think about the income taxes the Town of Greenburgh would owe both the Federal and NY State tax authorities...
The County doesn't even make a payment in lieu of taxes on the County Records Building on Route 9A, so what's the fuss about Greenburgh not paying taxes to Ardsley?
the county building serves all of westchester
veteran park serves only unincorporated greenburgh.
thats the difference.
the town's unincorporated area is freeloading in ardsley.
Anon at 8:48 doesn't seem to understand that when a government entity owns property, it is exempt from having to pay property taxes. There are plenty of Greenburgh-owned buildings in the Greenburgh Central school district, but I don't hear Ardsley crying that Greenburgh is freeloading on Greenburgh Central. The Scarsdale Bath and Tennis Club, which became Veteran Park, was for sale before the Town of Greenburgh bought it. If the Village of Ardsley wanted to prevent the Town from making the purchase, it could have purchased the property itself, or found someone else to make the purchase. But it didn't.
I believe the NYC reservoirs and its water delivery system go throug westchester (and even parts of greenburgh).
It is 9:11 who doesn't understand.
Of course municipalities are exempt from paying property taxes and Greenburgh doesn'thave to pay taxes to Ardsley.
The point is that although Greenburgh is exempt from paying Ardsley taxes, it is not required to prevent some Ardsley residents from using the pool. That part is just meanness. A decent group of residents would recognize that bit of humanity.
Of course under the Finneran Law Ardsley cannot use the pool. But since there is a committee working to amend the Finneran Law, they should provide a mechanism where some Ardsley residents can be allowed to use the pool. It wouldn't hurt Greenburgh to be nice.
Greenburgh is overly nice to villages. Thats part of Feiner's Village first policy which leaves TOV people to look to the courts. Feiner's opponent in the last election wanted to come up with a fair compromise on parks, not the one-sided, oh just let the villages use, you seem to be suggesting. The pool is over crowded on hot days in the summer, it can not take more people.
the pool is not crowded during the week.
the pool needs millions of dollars in repairs.
pool attendance is down.
the pool runs a deficit of 100s of thousands of dollars a year.
the folks that sit on the greenburgh recreation committee (and their enablers) are so petty and vindictive that they would rather the pool be closed than to allow some villagers to use it even though the villagers would pay for the privilege.
btw - a municipal facility that is not fully open to the public is not a true municipal facility. the town of greenburgh is freeloading on ardsley and its sad that every obfuscation and red herring is brought out to deny this fact.
amen
the same group of freeloaders stole the old town hall site from the villages
so much for feiner's village's first policies
What "fair compromise on parks" did Feiner's opponent propose?
finneran law is being given a run for its life by bernstein.
he has a powerful argument that part town taxation without the consent of those to be taxed is probably unconstiutional
stay tuned
And 6:32, I dont think the NYC aqueduct running through Gburgh is open to the public.
But under Finneran, can't villages vote to approve their participation in funding of TOV faciliaties, and thereby gain access (assuming the town is willing to allow this)?
Dear Anonymous at 10:45.
Finneran doesn't apply to "TOV facilities." It applies only to the town's public parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities.
Under Finneran the use of the town's parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities are required to be restricted to TOV residents. The court has ruled that the language of Finneran doesn't permit agreements between tha parks and the villages.
To achieve the result that you want -- that village residents can have some agreed use in return for payments -- an amendment to Finneran would be necessary.
herb
i disagree with you on two points
the appellate division seemingly said the finneran opt in provision for villages is still alive - i think they were wrong because the opt in period ended shortly after finneran was enacted.
there is also the issue of whether a village could opt in just for veteran or all of the town's park and rec programs
secondly, is it not possible for a village and the town to enter into an agreement creating a special recreation district to share the facility?
finally, and not related to your comment, it does seem unfair that a taxpayer in unincorporated and one in a village is treated differently for a parcel such as taxter which is open to everyone.
but thats for the ct of appeals to decide.
To the dissenter.
It is nice to get ananalytical comment rather than the usual angry postings. Let me comment further.
The Appellate Division's comment about the opt-in provision is less clear than the rest of its decision. As I read it, and reread it, I think that their statements about the opt-in provision are descriptive of what it says, not when it may be exercised. But it surely could be more precise. However, the opt-in provision applied to all the town's parks and recreational facilties and villages could not have picked and chosen which ones they wanted to opt into. Finneran is quite clear on that point.
I think that you are right that the town and the villages could have an agreement if there were a separate park district. The laws regarding park districts are separate from the Finneran Law.
As to your view that it is unfair for Taxter to be charged only to the B budget, that is a discussion worth having. But it will not be answered by the Court of Appeals -- that court wil only decide the constitutionality of the Finneran Law.
but if finneran is thrown out, then the villages have to pay for taxter and hart's brook.
herb - would you consider running for supervisor or town board?
its also unfair that unincorporated taxpayers get tax free use of 5 acres of ardsley village property at veteran.
ardsley taxpayers are subsidizing the park and increasing their own taxes for a park facility they cannot use.
the villages are also getting fleeced by the town board giveaway of the old town hall site.
Dear thx herb.
You are right. If Finneran is thrown out then the cost of all the town's public parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities are charged to the A budget, which is taxed to the entire town, including residents of the villages.
But no thx as to my running for town office, although I appreciate the thought.
wanted - town manager.
needed - candidates who will support professional town manager instead of allowing amateurs to run largest town in westchester county.
if bernstein loses, then edgemont will have a good reason to bolt the town.
this could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
now that would be another feiner accomplishment.
fulton park - you are not alone.
2009 is coming and the whole town is watching the circus being run by francis sheehanigans.
I stand with Fulton Park also.
Francis, I assume you are going to have your campaign funded by Paul because NO ONE ELSE WILL GIVE YOU A NICKLE. YOU DO JUETTNER
not a nickel -i agree
not a penny either.
sadly - no change in 4 years - only worse
Published: September 18, 2005
Greenburgh and Paul Feiner are not through with each other yet. Barring a surprise when voting machines are checked tomorrow, the apparently unsinkable Mr. Feiner, the town supervisor, has just survived his first primary election challenge in a dozen years, squeaking past Bill Greenawalt by 173 votes. He plans to run in November for his eighth term, chastened but unopposed.
Mr. Feiner said he was always sure he would win, but the narrow margin last Tuesday sent a message. The Feiner formula of tending to constituents' smallest worries - a sort of bonsai politics that has won him lots of elections and grassroots loyalty over the years - did not produce the customary landslide of votes. He ran against a well-organized and relentless bombardment of criticism led by a credible opponent, Mr. Greenawalt.
Two starkly different visions of Mr. Feiner - the radically responsive public servant and the bumbling egotist - clashed mightily in this race. Campaign mailings, e-mail messages and letters to editors reached an operatic fury worthy of Wagner, or at least Warner Brothers.
Now comes the cooling-off period. As Mr. Greenawalt kept insisting, major things need fixing in the town, not least the patching of relations with Greenburgh's five villages, where a committed core of Mr. Feiner's critics have been nurturing hopes of secession. That could be a disaster for Greenburgh, but the only solution presented so far - dumping Mr. Feiner - is no longer an option. So it falls now to Mr. Feiner to mollify fierce critics emboldened by their near-coup and by the failure of Mr. Feiner's running mates, Allegra Dengler and Kevin Morgan, to win Town Council seats.
Mr. Feiner must no longer ignore the substance of his critics' complaints, and the complainers must take their personal animus out of the mix. Mr. Feiner loves posing as an outsider, but governing as a put-upon gadfly will only assure two more years of nastiness. It's time for everyone to tune out the shrill voices on both sides of Feiner Gulch - those who can see neither redeeming qualities nor troubling flaws in this supervisor - and work together for a better-run town.
We bet that most people in Greenburgh are willing to let Mr. Feiner keep doing the small-bore, occasionally goofy things he does well if he tends to large, pressing problems - like infrastructure, the morale of town employees and the state of town finances - that were raised so relentlessly by the Greenawalt campaign.
Mr. Feiner wants you to know that he will try. He also wants you to know that there is a Dog Swim today at the satellite pool at Veteran Town Park from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Bring a towel and a dog.
But the crux of the NYT article was that Feiner was challenged by a "credible" opponent 3 years ago. Berger was not credible and, so far, the Samis & Bernstein (separate) camps have not proposed a "credible" opponent. Unless a serious candidate is found who is willing to campaign and counter Paul's "divide and conquer" strategy (e.g. Fairview v. Edgemont, villages v. TOV) and "do you still beat your wife?" tactics (e.g., the SWAT issue), Paul will win easily no matter how vociferous the whining on this blog. The main opposition seems to be centered around Edgemont, but an ECC type candidate is Paul's political dream. He has never relied on Edgemont votes and such a candidate would allow him to rally his Fairview base as well as the villagers who (justifiably) will be wary of a village/TOV tax redistribution plan coming out of the ECC. Learn to live with Paul, and adopt Samis "3 board votes" strategy.
for unknown reasons edgemont refuses to seek alliances with others in the town including villagers
thats why feiner and his four musketeers can do what they please.
four mouseketeers that is - revision came to me after having a cup of coffee.
Call them the Paulitburo and be done with them.
A great deal of those in GC non-Fairview (10530,10502,10607) had had enough of Feiner as well. Any decent candidate will get their vote.
where are those zip codes? streets etc.
the election is won in the democratic primary - thats about 9 months away.
if you want to run - you have to start now and contact the primary voters. greenburgh is a big place and channel 12 barely covers it.
Please Sheehan run for Town Supervisor.......
Post a Comment