Thursday, April 6, 2017

Bedlam Erupts As Town Petition Meeting Implodes

ABG staffers arrived early to ensure a parking space as well as seats in the room where the hearing was to be held regarding the Edgemont incorporation petitions. Unbeknownst to the hundreds of residents that were present, Mr Feiner decided to once again play games and limit those who spoke and keep those who wanted to speak from doing so. New rules were announced at the start of the meeting that would only allow those people who wanted to object to the incorporation to speak. The crowd was angry.

It’s no secret that Mr Feiner is against the Edgemont Incorporation effort and has gone out of his way to sabotage their efforts. And, he has repeatedly said he might not contract Town services with the new Village of Edgemont should incorporation be successful. Why he would not do what is best for the Town and it’s residents is difficult for us to comprehend. If he did contract services with Edgemont as a Village, the Town budget would remain close if not exactly as it is now. 


After Mr Feiner read a prepared statement, he had Robert Spolzino, a 
retired former appellate court judge, whom some said Mr Feiner “bought”, but we’ll say he hired for $50,000 to advise of the petition's sufficiency, read the law that they were following for this event. Then Town Clerk Judith Beville said they would be timing each speaker allowing them 3-minutes to speak. It was also mentioned that anyone who believed they were tricked by the private investigators that Mr Feiner is responsible for hiring, also would not be allowed to speak. Audience members could only speak if they were against the incorporation petition.

The owner of the private investigation firm Stanton Private Investigators, which was used to get the carefully crafted affidavits from every person who signed the original incorporation petition to invalidate as many as possible by signing this newer affidavit, said that he had many signature affidavits objecting to incorporation and would be delivering them to the Town Clerk’s office shortly. 


It was said just before the meeting started that someone was outside distributing petitions out in the lobby that could be used to speak against the incorporation petition. While we were unable to verify this, we did see Town Attorney Tim Lewis in the lobby with a handful of papers and appearing to be looking for someone. We noticed that speaker after speaker would read the same or similar statement as the speaker before them. Many were not from the Edgemont area which is surprising as only Edgemont residents can vote for incorporation; some were from Fairview, some from Elmsford and other areas of the Town.


A good number of the people protesting the incorporation petition were also many of the same people that have served Mr Feiner in numerous capacities and at his demand when needed. For instance, Ms Mona Freitag spoke against the incorporation petition, citing Craig Bernstein’s signature didn’t match his Board of Elections signature card. By the way, she was Mr Feiner’s hand-picked and personally backed candidate who he had helped run for the Hartsdale Fire District Commissioner position in the last fire district election. She lost that election.

After listening to about a dozen speakers lip-sync why they were against the incorporation petition, Mr Mark Rosenblatt went to the podium. He stated that he wanted to object to several of the objections. The retired judge interrupted him and said that only speakers objecting to the incorporation petition could speak. Taken aback, he stated that he had a right to rule against objecting to the objections. At this point the crowd, seemingly more pro-Edgemont incorporation began yelling, “Let him speak!” One retired judge sitting behind us yelled out, “Shame! Shame!” Then Bob Bernstein, Edgemont Community Council President shouted to the judge, “With all due respect, read part 3 of the statute!” The judge read part 3 which said written and verbal objections were allowed at the hearing. He then said it was his ruling that objections to the objections were not allowed. Like many Town Board meetings that Mr Feiner runs (into the ground) and makes up as he goes along, so too was this judge’s kangaroo court antics. At this point the crowd was on their feet yelling, This is bulls$#@!” and “Facist!”


Knowing their incompetent leader needed to be rescued, Mr Morgan went and whispered in Mr Feiner’s ear. He quickly announced,“We’re adjourned.” At which point almost everyone stood up chanting numerous slogans along with many people who were laughing at the ridiculousness of how this sham of a hearing was being run. Mr Feiner obviously paid this judge with our money and will probably be spending more unauthorized money to keep pushing his agenda to stop the incorporation. We can only imagine what it must be like to live in a Town or Village where everything is on the up and up and done the right way, trying to make life for its residents better. Oh wait, that’s what Edgemont is trying to do. They may be on the right track. If all neighborhoods could do this, we might get A Better Greenburgh.

11 comments:

  1. This was perhaps the final opportunity for Mr. Feiner to show he was capable of handling this serious matter judiciously. He choked or worse, he went AWOL at the meeting which he turned over first to Judy Beville and then the ill-suited former Justice Spolzino who was touted as an expert on municipal law (essentially an alternative fact for which no proof was shown). Spolzino was a poor choice as he had previously ruled against Edgemont in the Taxter Ridge case. Moreover, having just been hired by a new firm, it was in his interest to keep this matter at a boil to profit from the legal fees litigation would give rise to . A law professor who was truly an expert on New York State's Village Law would have been preferable.
    Feiner didn't even feign any interest in being a true fact finder or conduct one iota of diligence. For example, when a resident asserted the map relied upon by the EIC included part of the City of Yonkers, Feiner never asked obvious questions - such as what part of Yonkers? What streets? Have you verified this allegation with the City of Yonkers? Rank speculation and hearsay was offered on a variety of matters such as signatures and where people lived. At best, the objectants (mostly living outside Edgemont as well as not even in Greenburgh like the 1-800 private investigator hired by Spolzino's law firm) hinted at hyper-technicalties but fell far short of meeting their burden of proof that the petition should not be honored and the issue should be set for a straight up or down vote. Feiner (whose hands were visibly shaking while reading a prepared statement prior to the meeting), then got his wish to cancel the hearing when he inflamed the crowd by refusing to allow a response to the objections (a right seemingly contemplated by the enabling statute but which in the event of doubt should have been honored by anyone who issues press releases about open government) leading to the travesty outlined in A Better Greenburgh. Sadly this is what happens when there are no adults running the government - only career hacks who are so used to getting their way they panic when things do not. amid the chaos and confusion - two things are clear - the immediate future of Greenburgh is now unknown territory and the case for Edgemont and perhaps other parts of the TOV to incorporate is much stronger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The funniest moment of the evening was when that rakish dandy of a PI strutted up to the podium and flashed his $h*t eating grin. Then he delivered his remark and shared the 800 number and somebody said "What's that number?!" to make it sound like an infomercial. Great to see our tax dollars going to this schlock.

      Delete
  2. One issue is that when (not if) this goes to court, Feiner's credibility has already been shot down by a federal judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are there sufficient news and media outlets who can provide objective reporting on, and checks and balances for the way The Town of Greensburgh is run? Is there any recourse the elected public officials in Westchester County, either at the state or federal level, who can provide a counterpoint to any town political clique run-amuck?

      Delete
  3. 1. Curious - do the proponents of incorporation still feel the love for the TDYCC?

    2. More curious - What is the standard of review for "Judge" Feiner to apply when determining if the objectants met their burden of proof?

    3. Even more curious - Most of the Town's residents live in an incorporated village. Town Council Member Diana Juettner lives in a village. Why is this so controversial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I and everyone I've talked to in Edgemont have no problem funding the TDYCC so long as everyone pays their fair share. It's an important resource for a community in need. That said, why should Edgemont taxpayers bear 26% of the burden of facilities like that and AFV pool that none/few of us use?

      Delete
    2. The TDYCC is per the Town itself primarily a recreation facility which under the Finneran Law can only be paid for by Unincorporated Greenburgh and arguably other than the pool which was federally funded should only be used by residents of unincorporated Greenburgh. However, the facility (perhaps in violation of Finneran) is being used by residents throughout Westchester County and thus perhaps should be funded accordingly. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the EIC, the facility is run by the second parks and recreation department in the Town - Greenburgh probably being the only municipality in the United States with two such "seperate but equal" departments. Going even further, the amount of money the Town (TOV) spends on parks and recreation is much higher than neighboring White Plains even if population is adjusted. This is due in part to having two departments coupled with the documented mismanagement of the Town being running by a career politician who sicked a Private Investigator on his own citizens. With respect to the pool- first its used by many folks in Edgemont including camp kids and as it turns out 20% of Veteran Park is in Ardsley Village but Ardsley receives no compensation for this unjust taking of its land. Even if you do not use it, its a nice feature to tell a prospective buyer of your home that there is a Town Pool. Finally, given the parade of Fairview seniors and residents who appeared (after being coached at the TDYCC?) at the multi-purpose center in Veteran Park to oppose incorporation (and thus endorse the thuglike tactics of Stanton and Feiner), I now doubt few in Edgemont care if the TDYCC survives in its present form. The idea that you now want villagers to fund this operation without reforms or getting something in exchange is wishful thinking. Too bad no one asked for a show of hands at the April 5 "hearing" - who knows the cross street of the TDYCC? Its lip service to say we support the TDYCC - and who would believe it after the TDYCC folks stabbed Edgemont in the back. Sadly, no one stopped to think of the day after and how "the people in need" will fare after Edgemont incorporates, something the sleazy tactics of Feiner, Stanton and Spolzino have now assured.

      Delete
    3. I can't hold it against all the people who benefit from TDYCC that a few of them tried to deprive me of my right to vote. It seems like a pretty small expense, especially if it is distributed across the entire town including villages. What am I really paying, perhaps $200 on a $800k house assessment? And if they can spread it out among all the villages it might be like $80 a year.

      Delete
  4. RAID, there are MANY parts of TDYCC which are not parks and recreation. The child care program, the after school program. These programs should not be subject to Fineramn. If the town voted for villages to support those programs, I doubt Edgemont would lead the charge against. That and eliminating excessive overhead would go a long way to solving the problem. The sad part of this is that had Fiener not pushed ridiculous zoning decisions on Edgemont, I doubt they would have tried to incorporate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RAID, when the Town acquired Veterans, Ardsley did not want to join Greenburg parks and rec. As the Ardsley website indicates, the pools were not in Aredsley, only an access road. 10% of Veterans member are villages members, and ASD residents, including village residents, are eligible for camps that use Veterans. Please stop with the Ardsley Village is being taken advantage of. It isn't. Ardsley Villages are free loaders and you want more of that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 20% of the park is in Ardsley. TOV is the taker with no just compensation.

    ReplyDelete