The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh recognizes the importance of providing adequate and affordable housing for residents and employees.
On October 30, 2008, the Greenburgh Affordable Housing Committee reviewed three presentations from developers who had submitted responses to the Waterwheel RFP; and on November 18, 2008, after careful deliberation of the three presentations, the Affordable Housing Committee recommended that the Town of Greenburgh enter into negotiations for the sale of the property with the development group formed by Ariston Properties, Developer: Conrad Roncati, Community Housing Innovations, Affordable Housing Partner: Alexander Roberts and Architectura, Inc – Architect (“Developers”).The Developers are proposing a “green” design development that would be flexible and able to be changed based on further input from the community; and
the Developers are proposing eight (8) market units, six (6) “below market” rate units, and eight (8) affordable units, for a total of twenty-two (22) units on the property; and
The Developers have agreed to have restrictive covenants going with the land that will insure affordability of the units;
the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh hereby expresses interest in conveying the above mentioned Town-owned real property to Ariston Properties, Community Housing Innovations, and Architectura, Inc for development for affordable housing,
49 comments:
Why no mention of the price of the property? If the Town is conveying real property it owns to become "affordable housing" is no doubt is doing so because it it selling the property at a below market price. That means the taxpayers of Greenburgh, who have already been hit pretty hard, particularly those in unincorporated Greenburgh who've had a 31% hike these past two years, are taking it on the chin again. Don't you think we taxpayers are entitled to know how generous the Town Board has decided to be with our money once again? Tell the public how much the property is worth and tell the public how much you've agreed to sell it for? Why should we taxpayers have to file FOIL requests to get answers to these questions? The contempt you show for us seems to grow day after day.
lets hope the architect did not go to the same school as the one who was hired for the new greenburgh public library.
greenburgh does not need yet another eyesore.
wow Hal, you are up early.
Mr. Feiner: You forgot to include the financial details.
This property should be sold in accordance with the law - thereby setting a new precedent in Town behavior.
Announce that the Town will receive sealed bids and that the property will be awarded to the highest bidder.
That's what the law requires - why not comply for a change?
There are some fundamental questions that must be addressed when the town chooses to sell town property:
First, if the property is being sold for affordable housing, how much less than market value is the town getting for the property? Has a cost benefit analysis been conducted to determine whether the discount is in the Town's interest?
Second, how much of a hit will the Town be taking in terms of tax revenue. The Waterwheel property is zoned commercial, but it will now support a multifamily dwelling. What are the tax implications for the Town in changing the use from commercial to residential?
Also, what impact will this housing have on the Ardsley School District? It is conceivable that there may be as many as 50 school age children living in this complex when it is built. What will the financial impact be on the Ardsley School District in terms of educating these children? Note that multifamily dwellings are taxed at a much lower rate than single family homes.
Taxpayers in Greenburgh should call Feiner and the Town Board and demand that they answer these questions immediately. If they do not have the answers to these questions -- and Feiner's self-serving blog blurg suggests that he does not have the answers -- then demand that the Town put off this reckless sale until it does have answers. And tell your neighbors that this is yet another instance of financial mismanagement by a Feiner-led town board that doesn't seem even to know how to do even the most basic of things to protect its taxpayers and the tax base.
The town has not completed the negotiations re:price for the property. We have not sold the property as of yet - we are working with Ardsley and have expressed a preference for a developer.
No 6:06, I do not get up early and no I do not post without using my name. I don't have exclusive rights over "Library"; other residents may have reached similar conclusions.
What I do have to offer on this topic is the following:
One of the things I DO appreciate about the Supervisor is that he has no shame and proceeds as though nothing ever fazes him even though he is consistently wrong.
At last night's Town Board meeting (not the neighborhood re-election tour which preceded it) there were only about 10 residents at the official meeting. None of the regulars but me.
What Mr. Feiner forgets to mention in his "Original Post" is what I said at the meeting and what the Town Board did. In the original post he has edited the Resolution to avoid a discussion of what I brought up. Still he knows that I am bound to respond to this which has to do with my observation about his lacking the "shame" gene.
The following is what I sent to the Town Board last night following the meeting.
"Good show folks, you have just voted to express your interest in conveying a parcel that the Town neither owns nor may not even be in the Village of Ardsley.
When are you going to accept that I do my homework. Did you think I was bringing it up tonight without checking first. Do you think that printing out the Resolution online and seeing Ariston spelled "Aristion", seeing Innovations spelled Inovations, seeing Affordable spelled "Afroadable" in one sentence was not going to pique my curiousity? Did you not think that having already brought (quietly) to the Town Clerk's attention that on Change Order #59 the correct amount being $18, 261, that the $8,261 as shown on the original Agenda was wrong and understandably a typo.
Maybe if you want a little less friction in public, you might try being a little more tolerant of the public. And I "circumspectly" warned you during the 3 minute comment that something was coming -- you don't expect me to use my 3 minutes doing your work?
Try the phone book for a quick reference, the Village Animal Clinic, nearby, is 875 Saw Mill River Road. Your toady insisted that 330 Saw Mill River Road is accurate. (NOTE TO BLOGGERS: THE RESOLUTION IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY AS 330 SAW MILL RIVER ROAD)
As for Mr. Madden, I don't know whether his function is to be the Town Board's leashed house pet, but there is no excuse for his sloppy homework and throwing a monkey wrench into the serious business at hand. What he has done is make you look like fools who have vote on a matter before you for over a year and apparently don't even know the correct address, being off by around 500 street numbers or almost a mile as the crow flies. And this is not the first time that he and I have publicly clashed over his free-wheeling fabrications. Whereas I can't prove his culpability in the Dromore Road zoning map correction, I can remind you of what you should already know. At one of the Town Board meetings when I questioned that there was no amended site plan for the Library showing the new geothermal (40) drilling locations, a question then directed at Mr. Regula; it was Mr. Madden who rushed to the podium to state that there WAS an amended site plan. Subsequent research established that the amended site plan was done well BEFORE the geothermal location change and it was amended for other reasons. Failing to produce an amended site plan re the new well locations, Mr. Madden much later made the accurate statement (by email) that as the wells were all below ground, there was no need for an amended site plan. This does not excuse his tall tale at a public meeting.
At a recent meeting of the Planning Board, Mr. Madden allowed his clerk to throw out the evening Agendas which confirmed the mistake present too in the online Agenda showing the applicant, the Subway Restaurant on Central Park Avenue, having an incorrect address of White Plains instead of Hartsdale -- this was not the post office creation but the Planning Department. Those arriving for the scheduled Public Hearing after the substitution received the corrected Agendas showing the Hartsdale address. It is alarming that a Town Department head has no regard for the niceties of notice and feels that altering things to suit is the proper way of dealing with legal matters. If the facts don't work, then substitute what does.
Such was his behavior tonight. If he didn't know, if he made a mistake on the Resolution, it would be understandable and tolerable. If the new President of the United States can acknowledge having made a mistake, it should be a policy that could work in Greenburgh too. And the Town Board is not without guilt here either. The Town Board could have held the matter over; the Town Board could have done its homework; the Town Board could have delayed the vote a few minutes (the hour was early) and gone online to "google" a better answer -- after all, even Xposure kids have been "tracking" google. Or the Town Board could have considered that maybe another typo was the culprit after noticing three neaby mistakes in the same sentence.
But most of all, the Town Board needs to have a heart to heart with Mr. Madden who thinks the joke is on me.
And I would like an admission of error by Mr. Madden, on camera, at the next Town Board work session or Town Board Meeting. My knowledge and veracity is being questioned by his answer. The public should be aware of who was right."
I should also add that I have made a complaint to the Ethics Board naming Mr. Madden for improper solicitation from developers with business before the Town.
The Town is entering into negotiations with a developer. The final sales price will not be known until the negotiations have concluded. The Town is ordering an appraisal to get an idea of the current market price. The Town is under no obligation to sell the property if they are not satisfied with the results of these negotiations.
The Waterwheel property is NOT zoned commerical. It's zoned for residential, and has been for about 15 years. If a market rate developer comes in, he will attempt to build the maximum number of units permitted by zoning. There will be more cars, more children and more headaches.
The RFP indicated that the units will be taxed at their assessed level -- there will be no PILOT program or reduced property taxes. All of the units will generate tax revenue for the village and the school district, at the fair assessed rate. This particularly is true for the non-affordable units.
The Ariston proposal included 8 affordable units, along with a number of units (believed to be 14) sold at higher, market rated pricing. They will be taxed at their full assessed level.
Of course, some if this may change during the Town's negotiations but probably not substantially in this particular area.
The proposed units are mostly 2-bedroom. So the likelihood of having 50 children living there is remote. There will be some singles and some young married couples. Greenburgh may choose to offer their affordable units to seniors.
Most importantly, this is an important project not only for Ardsley, but for unincorporated Greenburgh, which makes up a significant portion of the Ardsley Fire Protection district and the ASVAC coverage area, and who will also have access to half of the affordable units. They will benefit from this as much as Ardsley will.
To characterize the project as "reckless" is unfair, inaccurate and downright wrong.
Anon at 12:17 is not being candid with the public.
Apparently there is already an appraisal for the Waterwheel property indicating a market value of $2.1 million. The desire to get a new appraisal is based on the assumption that, because of current depressed market conditions (or so people believe), the appraisal will come in lower -- and thereby the discount that Greenburgh will give the "affordable developer" will appear to be that much less. Greenburgh should be candid with the public and say that this is what it is doing.
Second, this is a multifamily dwelling project. Under state law, multifamily dwellings are assessed at a commercial rate based on an assumed rate of return as if each unit were a rental, rather than the market rate for each individual unit. As a result, multifamily dwellings in Greenburgh are not only assessed at a lower rate compared to single family residences -- but they are typically entitled to substantial tax certiorari claims. Paul Feiner knows this of course. He lives in Boulder Ridge, which is a luxury condo development that takes full advantage of the tax breaks and cert claims that multifamily dwelling units in New York can claim.
And because these are multifamily dwellings, they will almost certainly be occupied by families with children -- particularly if the two bedroom units are deemed to be "affordable." How many children are expected to be housed there? If it's not fair to say 50 is too high an estimate, then tell us the actual estimate, tell us what the expected cost to the school district will be, tell us what the tax benefit will be, and only then will we be able to judge whether that estimate is reasonable.
And it is ridiculously stupid for anon at 12:17 to say that any market rate developer at this site would attempt to build as many units as possible. Luxury developers typically want to preserve as much green space as possible because the units they construct can command a higher price.
Only "affordable" developers seek to cram as many units as possible in the space -- and they do so for a very good reason. They not only seek to maximize the number of units that can generate income, but they also would like to see that their tenants qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers which would allow for recovery of a market rate return.
All of these factors must be taken into account before deciding whether the Town should even be negotiating with this developer, much less whether any contract of sale with this developer would even make sense.
The fact that the Town has not put any of this information on the table for the public to see suggests, as that earlier blogger suggested, that this is indeed another reckless project being foisted on taxpayers in Greenburgh by a naive and apparently venal Town Board, acting once again with contempt for the taxpayer.
Thank you 1:52 for clarifying the issues.
1:52 is on fantasy island, incredibly mean spirited and so filled with rage against feiner that his vision is one dimensional.
the waterwheel is being offered for sale in 2009 not twelve years ago when it went into default. sale of the waterwheel at any price will not address the town's deep financial problems.
market conditions have drastically changed - thats not the fault of the town - everyone's property is worth less - a whole lot less.
any appraisal done even a few months ago is suspect. any lender will require a current appraisal.
last time anyone checked, there is nothing illegal about building multifamily housing. yes, its taxed lower. is that the town's fault? - no. its state tax policy and law.
one wonders if 1:52 has even seen the location. no developer is going to build single family homes on route 9A - just up the street is a townhouse development. down the street to the north is multifamily senior housing.
outside of creating a park - thats what is going in this location. so lets stop the red herring of putting in single family dwellings at the waterwheel location.
btw - the parcel is also subject to a historical easement - did you know that 1:52?
As for children - not every child will even be attending the public schools. yes there will be children who have to be educated. thats the business of every community in westchester from rye to scarsdale to hastings to edgemont to bronxville etc but there is a whole village and fire districs and ambulance services (that also serve unincorporated greenburgh) that can take advantage of keeping members through affordable housing at the waterwheel. what about them 1:52?
1:52, do you shop at decicco's in ardsley? many of your neighbors do as evidenced by the grocery receipts. if you get sick in ardsley or get into a traffic accident (on your way to stew leonards or costco - who rescues you - volunteers from ardsley. these good folks need affordable units to retain members. so 1:52, did you factor that into your small minded dollars and cents analysis.
Speaking of analysis - thats what you need to cure yourself of your obsession with feiner.
Your discussion of section 8 is rather laughable. Obviously you never attended any meetings with the neighbors of this site who signed off on this project so long as there is no section 8. This is not Westhab at Fulton Park. We watched and we learned. There will be no Francis Sheehan bait and switch on definitions here.
Neither you nor anon who followed your post have any ideas on housing policy, affordable housing, or the needs of the local community.
When you do, then you should get your facts straight, get over your Feiner problem and help make this project a success.
Right now its sitting empty.
All of these factors must be taken into account before deciding whether the Town should even be negotiating with this developer, much less whether any contract of sale with this developer would even make sense.
The fact that the Town has not put any of this information on the table for the public to see suggests, as that earlier blogger suggested, that this is indeed another reckless project being foisted on taxpayers in Greenburgh by a naive and apparently venal Town Board, acting once again with contempt for the taxpayer.
2/04/2009 1:52 PM
1:52 is on fantasy island, incredibly mean spirited and so filled with rage against feiner that his vision is one dimensional.
the waterwheel is being offered for sale in 2009 not twelve years ago when it went into default. sale of the waterwheel at any price will not address the town's deep financial problems.
market conditions have drastically changed - thats not the fault of the town - everyone's property is worth less - a whole lot less.
any appraisal done even a few months ago is suspect. any lender will require a current appraisal.
last time anyone checked, there is nothing illegal about building multifamily housing. yes, its taxed lower. is that the town's fault? - no. its state tax policy and law.
one wonders if 1:52 has even seen the location. no developer is going to build single family homes on route 9A - just up the street is a townhouse development. down the street to the north is multifamily senior housing.
outside of creating a park - thats what is going in this location. so lets stop the red herring of putting in single family dwellings at the waterwheel location.
btw - the parcel is also subject to a historical easement - did you know that 1:52?
As for children - not every child will even be attending the public schools. yes there will be children who have to be educated. thats the business of every community in westchester from rye to scarsdale to hastings to edgemont to bronxville etc but there is a whole village and fire districs and ambulance services (that also serve unincorporated greenburgh) that can take advantage of keeping members through affordable housing at the waterwheel. what about them 1:52?
1:52, do you shop at decicco's in ardsley? many of your neighbors do as evidenced by the grocery receipts. if you get sick in ardsley or get into a traffic accident (on your way to stew leonards or costco - who rescues you - volunteers from ardsley. these good folks need affordable units to retain members. so 1:52, did you factor that into your small minded dollars and cents analysis.
Speaking of analysis - thats what you need to cure yourself of your obsession with feiner.
Your discussion of section 8 is rather laughable. Obviously you never attended any meetings with the neighbors of this site who signed off on this project so long as there is no section 8. This is not Westhab at Fulton Park. We watched and we learned. There will be no Francis Sheehan bait and switch on definitions here.
Neither you nor anon who followed your post have any ideas on housing policy, affordable housing, or the needs of the local community.
When you do, then you should get your facts straight, get over your Feiner problem and help make this project a success.
Right now its sitting empty.
Anon at 1:52 must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. The response suggests that Anon at 1:52 is obsessed with Feiner. But nowhere does Anon at 1:52 even mention Feiner. So what's that all about? All that Anon at 1:52 seems to be saying is that the public deserves to get a lot of more information about this sale of town property before anyone can say whether it makes sense. The fact that a rather basic request for common sense information seems to have been met with such a hostile response makes the entire Waterwheel matter really fishy.
If the hostility is coming from an Ardsley resident, and it sounds like it is, that resident should bear in mind that even if Greenburgh sells the property at a sweetheart price to a developer who will build for Ardsley fire and ambulance volunteers a few units of affordable housing, the developer cannot by law allow only Ardsley volunteers to live there and there may well be a substantial cost to Ardsley school district taxpayers. What's wrong with asking what that cost will be?
no mention of Paul Feiner? - here is what 1:52/3:56 wrote -
Paul Feiner knows this of course. He lives in Boulder Ridge, which is a luxury condo development that takes full advantage of the tax breaks and cert claims that multifamily dwelling units in New York can claim.
seems 1:52/3:56 is a bit mixed up here.
3:56 is really confused. Ardsley volunteers serve everyone. Ardsley volunteers live in the Ardsley school district which is twice the size of the village and which is located largely in unincorporated Greenburgh.
The task is to carefully connect the affordable housing to a volunteer first responder position.
This is not easy especially if the volunteer can no longer do the job or other circumstances change.
As for the Ardsley School District, when is the TOV going to start paying taxes to the ASD for its restricted pool facility in Veteran Park, 20% of which is in the ASD for which the TOV gets a free ride.
As noted by an earlier blogger, 3:56 is out to get Feiner (even it thats understandable), but blaming Feiner for everything is foolish.
Feiner was right about the Greenburgh Public Library but we dont here 3:56 admitting that do we.
3:56 likes to stir the pot but lately no one is buying his product.
A few years ago Boulder Ridge filed a certiorari claim against the town. I sent a letter to the lawyer for Boulder Ridge advising them that I would not be a part of the lawsuit and that my wife and I would not be entitled to any refund that is issued to Boulder Ridge. My family may be entitled to refunds issued to residents (later on) but will not be receiving them. I have commented about this matter publicly.
PAUL FEINER
seems 1:52/3:56 has been tongue tied. he is now only complaining about the theoretical cost to the ASD of the affordable units at the Waterwheel - thus conceding the need for affordable units for first responders that will serve the entire town.
Seems 1:52/3:56 is clueless how to carefully tie the affordable housing use with a volunteer firefighter or ambulance worker as the occupant.
Thats the challenge and 1:52/3:56 has nothing to say on the matter on than - its Feiner's fault.
Thanks Mr. Supervisor.
Now how do we link the affordable housing with an occupant who will be a volunteer firefighter or asvac person?
Ardsley volunteers live in the Ardsley school district which is twice the size of the village
???? The Village of Ardsley is almost the same size as the Ardsley school district. There are only a handful of homes with Ardsley PO's that are in TOV.
If the Waterwheel development is built as a homeowner's association, are the units taxed like single family homes?
if so, even if "multifamily," the waterwheel will not cost the ASD anything.
4:32pm - Ardsley village residents only comprise 40% of the Ardsley school district. The other 60% are mostly TOV, with some Dobbs Ferry residents included.
Incidentally, Ardsley's parks and recreation programs are open to everyone in the school district, even though only the 40% who live in the village are supporting these programs with their taxes. That includes all programs for youth and senior citizens.
A few years ago, when I was living in a condo, I wrote Feiner in opposition to a proposal in Albany to eliminate the property tax subsidy that luxury condos and co-ops get, and he wrote back that he would never support the elimination of that subsidy. I still have a copy of that letter, so it really doesn't matter that he says he won't take advantage of all the wonderful tax breaks he gets as a resident of Boulder Ridge. We all know that residents of multifamily dwellings, if they have children, get a fabulous deal on their school taxes -- Paul Feiner included.
So now that I live in a single family house with my husband and kids in a school district that would be impacted adversely by the addition of a few dozen kids whose parents won't have to pay the full property tax freight that the rest of us must pay -- I must say that I agree with anon at 1:52. We should get all the facts about this Waterwheel deal before the Town goes ahead with it.
Right now, that huge Gel-Sprain development off Ardsdley Road is going to add dozens more kids to our school district. Our facilities are going to be jammed. But at least their property assessments might cover the cost of educating these kids (assuming we don't have to bond an expansion of facilities).
You really can't say the same thing about this "affordable housing" complex that's being proposed, and that's why it's right to ask questions about this. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do.
I really had to laugh out loud when I read here that Ardsley residents had been assured that there would be no Section 8 housing at the Waterwheel site. Residents of Fulton Park got the same assurance from Feiner -- in writing -- in connection with the Westhab development. And then, several months later, when it turned out that financing required that all of the Westhab units qualify for Section 8 housing, Feiner said he had misunderstood and retracted his promise.
So lots of luck there Ardsley residents! Maybe you won't get screwed by Feiner like the residents of Fulton Park did, but don't bet on it.
Ardsley School District serves more residents of Unincorporated Greenburgh than it serves residents of Ardsley Village. In addition to serving western Dobbs Ferry, the district boundaries extend to include the sections of 10583, 10530 and 10607 that are west of the Sprain Brook Parkway and along Sprain Road. See
this link for specifics.
once again (for perhaps those outside the ardsley school district or who hate paul feiner even if he cured the common cold), it the waterwheel is a homeowners association the units are taxed like single family homes
if this is the case - and no one has disputed it yet - there is no subsidy for the multifamily development
if you live in a fire district serviced by ardsley fire engine 1 or by asvac, you would be aghast at the negativists (probably one person with multiple posts) who are asking questions about the waterwheel development - they are not asking in good faith - they are just playing games to further their own agenda - they are not interested in the needs of the larger community for first responders
clearly no one is buying their koolaid
lets stop trying to pretend the waterwheel is the savior of unincorporated greenburgh;s financial plight
OK with me, as long as all town people have the same priority for units. NO ardsley first. Or else there will be lawsuits.
frankly this whole method of funding affordable housing should be rethought
if those serviced by first responders want to keep their members, let them issue vouchers for these folks - the vouchers end when they no longer serve as volunteers for the fire dept or asvac
this concept could be expanded to help teachers and police
this way the property could be developed at market but the developer agrees to accept vouchers for firefighters etc
How much Tax money from the new owners is being collected from the Manhatten Ave buildings .Those property's where suppose to be afforable too.How is $2500 a month afforadable. It may be for Section 8 but what about the normal working people.
Paul were you a sleep at the switch when this happen.
Have you even looked into what is going on over there?
"Asleep at the switch"? Paul Feiner and the Town Board.
"Waterwheel Property on Saw Mill River Road to become Affordable Housing".
Why is everyone reacting to this post. Why is everyone getting excited? The Town Board DID NOT VOTE, I repeat DID NOT VOTE as Mr. Feiner has lied you to believe: (this from his original post) "the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh hereby expresses interest in conveying the ABOVE MENTIONED TOWN-OWNED REAL PROPERTY to Ariston Properties, Community Housing Innovations, and Architectura, Inc for development for affordable housing," and what comes after the dangling comma are these words in the Resolution that was voted upon last night: "subject to all applicable laws, regulations and other requirements, and after undertaking due diligence."
Which of those words following the orphaned comma do you think the Supervisor and the Town Board intend to follow?
Certainly not due diligence because at the top of the Resolution which Feiner also omitted from his post is "THE ABOVE MENTIONED TOWN-OWNED REAL PROPERTY" which ABOVE MENTIONED is captioned as 330 Saw Mill River Road which is not owned by record by the Town and may not even be in Ardsley. So much for due diligence. A prior appraisal, on what property? Ask yourselves why the Town Board would not listen to this writer who attempted to correct the Town Board's error while the meeting was still happening. Now the Town Board must meet to correct the Resolution (a legal document) by listing the correct address which may be around 880 or 882 Saw Mill River Road. When that happens, bloggers start your engines. In the meanwhile, you will note that Feiner only wants bloggers to know that he won't benefit from the CERT appeal; none of his neighbors will even be grateful for it and want to vote for him. But more importantly, is when is the Town and bloggers going to recognize that what caused this new round of interest is a bogus event. At least give the Town Board a chance to rectify their stubborn mistake.
The property at 330 Saw Mill River Road I understand is a vacant lot.
Maybe the Town has secretly secured title to this property and the only error in the Resolution was calling the 330 parcel, the Waterwheel property. Anything is possible. One thing is certain:
The Town Board and the Planning Commissioner don't have a clue what they're voting on and for something before both the Town Board and the Plannin Commisioner for so long, one would think that the Town Board, the Planning Commssioner, the Town Attorney or the Town Clerk would have a clue.
The two addresses are not even close. But like the Library, the dais would rather shoot the messenger than hear the message. And in that conflict who always is right? And who is always wrong?
Think that once in awhile they would want to follow Obama and do something that is right. Or even acknowledge that they were wrong.
So I suggest that everyone back-off and wait to hear from the Supervisor which property is being readied for sale? How about it Mr. Supervisor?
A few simple, humbling words will set the record straight. After all it was you who wrote elsewhere "that great minds think alike". Don't you want to be on the right side for a change?
I wouldnt worry about low-income housing there. The Towns methodolgoy is to give the property away at a bargain price so there doesnt have to be section 8 if it is in a white area, but if the area is mixed, then Section 8 OK. THIS TYPE OF ATTITUDE LED TO THE YONKERS SCHOOL DESEGREGATION SUIT AND IS VERY DANGEROUS.
Paul gets us into more lawsuits becuse he doenst think it out and listen to others first.
The Mayor of Ardsley invited members of the School Board to the developer presentations because he knew they had concerns over the amount of school taxes generated from the project. The estimated school taxes were one of many criteria considered by the affordable housing committee in selecting the developer that was recommended. The recommended proposal offers the highest school tax estimates of the three proposal, because there are 8 market rate units, 8 affordable units and 6 "in between."
The school board trustees who attended the meeting asked questions on behalf of their constituents. Their concerns were addressed, particularly with the developer the Town Board will be negotiating with.
If you are reading this blog and you reside in the Ardsley School District, you can be assured that your school board is looking out for your interests with this project. If you do not live in the school district, it is difficult to understand why you would be so concerned about school taxes you won't be paying.
Lastly, if you live in the ASD and the Ardsley Fire Protection District, your biggest tax savings in the long run will be if the Fire Dept and Ambulance Corps remain volunteer. That applies to both TOV and village residents who reside within the school district.
The Waterwheel property was formerly 330 SMRR; the address was changed in recent years, but the old address is posted on old documents. The old address was apparently used on the Town Board resolution inadvertently.
Commissioner Madden made an honest mistake, which he will correct. With all due respect to Mr. Samis, whom I respect as an intelligent and insightful contributor to this blog, this is not an error worthy of all of so much energy and outrage.
Dear 8:59,
You apparently appear to be an "insider" with knowledge of what Mr. Madden did. And, THAT doesn't bother you but it bothers you that I am concerned.
Please share with us some more of what you have learned with your all-access pass.
You're being a little vague with phrases as "the old address" 'changed' in "recent years" and "the old address posted on the old documents" or "the Waterwheel was formerly 330".
How long ago is old?
WHEN WAS THE OLD ADDRESS "CHANGED" TO THE "NEW" ADDRESS?
Seems odd that a property on the same side of the street could jump from 330 to somewhere around 880, doesn't it?
How about the adjacent properties? Did they change too?
Give us the benefit of your wisdom.
I'm thinking that the Town and Mr. Madden have no idea what they are doing and at best failed to detect a typo, perhaps from the past. Only the public outside of the loop has this special ability.
But go on, back up your story. WHEN was the address "changed"?
Let's bring back that old "don't tell me, show me" spirit of discovery.
And "the old address was apparently used on the Town Board resolution inadvertently". But they unwilling to change it when it was pointed out to them.
And in classic gotcha, had the Town Board not held its Official Town Board meeting to conduct Town Business away from Town Hall (like the Town Board had agreed to do when they stopped these roadshows) where the official records were kept, then not only would the files be available immediately to the Town Board, the meeting would also have been broadcast LIVE -- so that "dial democracy" on a night of inclement weather could be utilized. Instead, the Town Board attached the Business Meeting to the election year neighborhood Political Meeting and this mistake is the outcome. It was to allow for these situations that the Town Board agreed to stop the neighborhood official Business Meetings; when they changed their own policy, voila!
So, whereas you want to say "no big deal", it is indeed a big deal.
Hal - It's no big deal. Focus your talents on a more significant issue.
There's something very disturbing about some of these blog entries on the Waterwheel deal. Hal Samis is told to back off his criticism of Planning Commissioner Madden's sloppy mistakes in preparing the Waterwheel resolution and the Town Board's refusal and/or inability to correct them, and other bloggers who raise questions about the Waterwheel deal are also told to back off, that if they live in the Ardsley School District, their school board is dealing with the tax issues, and that if they don't live in the ASD, these issues are none of their business.
Says who? Don't know. The bloggers are all anonymous. But there's a smell surrounding all of this -- and it's the smell of a town government that doesn't want the public to know what it's up to.
The questions being raised by Mr. Samis and the others are all legitimate questions. They go to how the town makes land use decisions. It's no coincidence that the folks in Ardsley are being told that the "affordable housing" project there is for their community's "first responders." In fact, there's no legal way for Ardsley to require a private developer to provide such housing.
The same sort of BS was fed to Fulton Park residents when they were told the Westhab project ther was for the "workforce" when, in fact, it was all intended to be Section 8 housing for which most members of the "workforce" wouldn't qualify.
The public saw how corrupt the process was in connection with the Fulton Park disaster. And the public will soon see how corrupt the process was in connection with the Fortress Bible situation.
It seems the town board doesn't want the public to know what's going on on any number of fronts these days. That usually means bad news for the taxpayers. This is clearly a town government that's circling the wagons in an effort to keep everyone in the dark. No wonder the town wants to charge everyone 25 cents a page for any FOIL request it deigns to honor.
If the town wanted to keep this secret why would the Supervisor be posting the summary of the boards actions on the blog?
If the town wanted to be candid with the public, it would answer all the questions that have been raised about the Waterwheel sale, isntead of dismissing them as being asked in bad faith, or being asked by someone with an agenda.
Since when does the government have the right to pick and choose what to answer based on its subjective belief as to the underlying motives of the questioner? That's a pretty scary proposition.
Because the Town Supervisor wants to get a quick reading on how much he can get away with? The blog is not a deposition or undertaking. It is not a Public Hearing which becomes part of a public record.
The price to gauge the support for his pet projects is that he posts topics and puts up with comments from those that take the other side. And maybe it gives him a look-see into what the other side arguments might be so that he can find ways around them.
At the same time, the opposition comments make the blog a lively place and interesting reading. Otherwise, no one would continue to read or comment.
How long can anyone listen to the sound of one hand clapping?
But as 11:39 points out, there seems to be a mounted effort to avoid answers as well as to divert discussion away from the subject matter onto the critics and those with questions.
Again, if you see Hal Samis says, just scroll down; why would anyone want to take the effort to advise me that what I want to know is unimportant? A sure sign that it is.
In the meantime, if the answers existed, it would be so easy just to answer the questions and everyone could move on.
disturbing blog posts on the waterwheel?
what poppycock.
and then we get anon complaining about anon.
sometimes the critics have nothing to say so they invent imaginary issues.
hal's involvement with this issue is somewhat weird. he pays no taxes, lives in hartsdale and has no kids in the ASD. the address error has been explained.
hal - you need to start your campaign not deal with trifles like this
Glad that this property is going to be used for needed housing.
Asked and answered?
Trifle?
I asked when was the "old" address changed because I don't believe the answer given by anonymous. Anonymice have the ability to write anything which does not mean that what they write is true.
Tell me when the change was made.
If this is such a difficult thing to answer, then maybe it isn't such a trifle either.
And if it were imaginary, then that would explain the Town Board voting to sell a property that they were told didn't exist. Knowing that it wasn't for real would at least be comforting; that the Town Board did not make the correction for Mr. Madden in the real world is what's scary.
Again, when they are caught squarely in the headlights, they try to get out of the glare by saying I shouldn't be behind the wheel. I may not own a car but I do have a valid driver's license.
hal be careful you dont turn into ed krauss
ARDSLEY---get ready for section eight housing within the Water wheel property.
If this town board has anything to say or do about it you will have more changes to allow more section eight than is slated for such a project.
Just listen to the way the Fulton Park project was handled [all with lies]and in the end it turned out to be for the destitute and no work force/
see mayors comments on the blog. The above was inaccurate. --as usual.
Just sell it and be done with it already! Ardsley can handle the details with the developer quite well on its own.
MEMO TO "MEMO TO HAL SAMIS,said" 2:06, 10:09
What exactly do you mean by "be careful you don't turn into Ed Krauss?
No need to use your name, just elucidate.
Do you mean I ask seemingly easy questions to answer, and when they are not answered, I continue to ask...as Hal has done.
As a resident of TOV or a VILLAGE you, no matter whether you're pro or against Feiner, should want to know the answers to Hal's questions. Or are you a LEMMING?
Asked and answered. Forget this posting, Mr./Ms. LEMMING.
ed krauss thinks everything needs his commentary
sorry ed - some things are not worth commenting on
hal - choose your battles
I have bookmarked your blog, the articles are way better than other similar blogs.. thanks for a great blog!
Baylisting.com
Post a Comment