Refusing to publicly disclosed who they are, Mr. Feiner insists he has spoken about the property with potential bidders, offering more money for the property than House of Sports. Why he refuses to inform the Town residents who these people are adds to the shroud of secrecy and back room deals Mr Feiner is so anxious to do.
Here is Justice Rosenberg’s unedited letter:
Paul,
As with your earlier referendum, your letter misstates facts and omits important facts. While that doesn't seem to bother you, I will comment for the sake of others.
1. You have said several times that both GameOn and House of Sports have threatened lawsuits. You know perfectly well that GameOn isn't going to sue because, as the lower bidder, they have no claim, and if they did sue that would be sanctioned by the court for a frivolous lawsuit as part of the quick dismissal of their case.
2. You say, in your questions, that the site "is currently appraised at $1.6 million but would be worth more if it is rezoned for other uses." You omit the fact that the property was appraised with GameOn's recreation proposal before the appraiser, including the need to rezone. Your misleading point seems to be that the property would be worth more if it is rezoned for recreational uses. In fact, it is worth more, as House of Sports has shown. It is the appraisal that was "cooked" so that GameOn could bid $1.7 million and make it seem like a fair price.
3. Although you state the appraised value, you fail to state the amounts already offered -- $3.5 million from House of Sports and $1.7 million (with a highly contingent additional $1.3 million) from GameOn, which you touted as a fair price. That kind of information is important for purposes of asking residents for an opinion.
4. You say that people have been calling you. You always say that people have been calling you, but of course you can't prove it and nobody can disprove it. But if true, so what? People, in general, don't have the financial, legal, or planning knowledge that is required for such decisions, and so you are just using the words "people have been calling" you to justify whatever actions that you want to do, because there is no way to prove that anyone called you. However, I doubt that this will ever stop you.
4. Most of the questions -- especially the last eight -- should not be asked of the general public. The Town Board has been elected to study, consider, research, etc., so that intelligent decisions can be made by responsible elected officials who are expected to understand legal, financial, budgetary, planning and environmental issues -- things that the general public is not trained to understand and does not have the information to understand. In other words, your questionnaire is unserious.
You are now talking about selling the site in the winter of 2014. If yours were an honest approach, it would mean a further delay of almost two years. But you have not shown yourself to be honest. It is fairly clear that your real purpose -- or strategy -- is to prevent the House of Sports from acquiring the property, probably to enable the GameOn people to get financing. Or maybe it is just to spite House of Sports. The public good has been secondary in your actions in recent years.
You have turned a golden opportunity into a mess, and as usual, the Town will suffer.
Herb Rosenberg
Judge Rosenberg is totally correct; it is business as usual for Mr. Feiner. I too have expressed similar concerns via E-Mail and Facebook and in true Feiner fashion, instead of receiving ANSWERS I got the following response on his Facebook page.
ReplyDeletePaul Feiner: We are trying to do the best for the town. Although you have been a critic in the past, I would welcome your input as we develop the RFPs, solicit bids, advertise the property. The process will be open, transparent and the best offer will get the property.
I replied to Mr. Feiner s’ comment above via the email below.
From: Howard Hirsch
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:10 PM
To: 'Paul Feiner'; 'Ken Jones'; Kevin Morgan; Francis Sheehan; 'Diana Juettner'
Subject: Your Recent Post Reply
Paul,
Instead of replying to my suggestions using sound logic to act otherwise, you chose to make the issue about me stating “Although you have been a critic in the past”. I don’t have to be right, but you have given me nothing concrete to suggest otherwise. I offer suggestions because to me they sound reasonable, and you reply by calling me a critic and asking for my input to help you continue on a path I already explained was in my opinion futile and a waste of time and taxpayer dollars (unless you show me otherwise).
I have offered to be involved in committees for you in the past (Townwide communications) to help make things better for the Town but they apparently didn’t fit your agenda. I sat on the committees that did fit your agenda (GBOC) and found myself outnumbered and studying issues that mostly had predetermined outcomes.
Suggestion, please continue to either ignore my posts or share valuable information that could prove me wrong but don’t (I repeat don’t) try to explain your actions by attacking me.
This is the reply I posted to your post above. I share it here for the benefit of the Town Board.
“Paul, please don't make this about me, it's insulting. I asked you to make an educated decision before performing an RFP; a decision based on research and facts. You should first prove that you will receive more than $3.5 million if an RFP is performed because you currently have an appraisal for $1.6 million and an offer on the table for $3.5 million. Without such facts, an RFP is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
I then asked you to challenge your $3.5 million offer by House of Sports and attempt to close a deal with them in a reasonable time-frame. If that deal doesn't materialize, then an RFP would be warranted. If the deal were to close, so does this issue (once and for all) and the Town will have its revenue.
Instead we get your usual "I believe" or "I think". Government (like most businesses) should not be run off of ad hoc and impulsive feelings. It's great that we often hear you say "I have an idea", however, acting upon those ideas without vetting them first is in my opinion quite irresponsible.
"Trying to do the best you can", while admirable, does not excuse making poor decisions for the town and it's taxpayers.