Elmwood Country Club Update

At Wednesday's Town Board meeting (4/13/22), Mr. Feiner read a statement that the Board will comply with the 2016 Town Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance in making its decision in regard to the former Elmwood Country Club.

NO INCREASE IN DENSITY IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

NO DOWNZONING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

The Town will support ALTERNATIVE (H) - 113 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES with the required land transfer.

He stated that there was an extensive amount of documentation received by the Town Board. Letters and emails on this project were sent to the Town by the following:

Involved Agencies: Conservation Advisory Council, Westchester County Planning Board, NYS Dept. of Transportation, Greenburgh Planning Board, Greenburgh Parks & Recreation Advisory Board.

Interested Parties - Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, Elmsford School District, Fairview Fire District, Worthington-Woodlands Civic Association, Fulton Park Civic Association, Secor Homes Civic Association, Ardsley-Sprain Road Civic Association, Historic and Landmarks Preservation Board.
Residents of Greenburgh.

The Commissioner of Planning with the Town staff and the Planning Consultants will draft the Town’s Findings Statement within 2 weeks. The official resolution will be voted upon in MAY after the Town accepts the Findings.

It is apparent that the responses from Greenburgh residents were instrumental in the Town Board arriving at its decision. Thank you to all who participated in the SEQR process (Scoping Committee), sent emails and attended and spoke at the Public Hearings.

– Dorinne Livson, WWCA

Latest ESCO News

Since 2016, when the Town enrolled all residents/small businesses into the Westchester Power ESCO program, Ken Stahn of the CGCA has been monitoring the variable rates of Con Ed versus the fixed rate of the ESCO. For the last 19 months, Ella Preiser of the CGCA has been preparing tables showing the differences in those rates.

During this contract period, Con Ed rates were consistently lower than the $0.07709 fixed rate agreed to by Mr Feiner with the ESCO. The Town has now signed a new 18 month contract with Westchester Power - Sustainable Westchester for a "green program" starting Jan. 1, 2021. Everyone who did not OPT-OUT of the current program will be enrolled in the new “green program”. Even though many residents wanted an OPT-IN choice instead of having to waste time and money with an order to OPT-OUT, the Town went ahead with the OPT-OUT program.

In response to numerous inquiries, here is information on how to “OPT-OUT” of the current contract with Westchester Power-Constellation.

Call Westchester Power (not Con Ed) at (914) 242-4725 or send an email to:
westchesterpower@sustainablewestchester.org

Be ready to give your Con Ed account # and your ESCO-Constellation reference #, if requested. It may take 1 or 2 billing cycles. According to Paul Feiner and Westchester Power, if you have already OPTED OUT of the current contract, you will NOT be enrolled in the new green contract.

Check your January & February 2021 bills to make sure you are still with Con Ed for your electric supply.

After you receive confirmation that you are out of the ESCO program, you can contact Con Ed to put a block on your account that will not allow any changes without your authorization.

Telephone # 1-800-752-6633 or go to the Con Ed Website: www.coned.com and go to “Contact Us” to send an email.

Dorrine Livson
CGCA Executive Board Member
cgca1955@gmail.com

Should We Go With An ESCO After Losing Money For Two-Years

 A Message to All:

The Executive Board of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) urges you to watch and participate (via Zoom) in the meeting tonight, September 23, at 7:30 PM, regarding whether the Town of Greenburgh should join with other municipalities to purchase your electric supply through an ESCO (Energy Supply Company).

The current two-year contract with the ESCO Constellation will expire in December.  The attached table documents information from the last nineteen (19) Con Edison bills for five households that “opted out” of this contract.  As the table demonstrates, the latest cost per kWh (mainly for the month of August) was 5.4 to 5.9 cents.  That is considerably less expensive than the 7.709 cents per kWh those still enrolled in the contract are paying.

Based on the monthly information circulated by the CGCA, Supervisor Paul Feiner has had to acknowledge that the current contract has been costly to the nearly 12,000 residential and small business electric users that the Town Board enrolled in the “standard” option.  Under the current contract, unincorporated Greenburgh is only one of three municipalities participating in the “standard” option.  Twenty-three other municipalities, including five Greenburgh villages – Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings-on-Hudson, Irvington and Tarrytown – are enrolled in the “green” option.  The Village of Elmsford and the nearby Town/Village of Scarsdale do not participate in the current contract negotiated by Westchester Power.

Mr. Feiner is now considering enrolling unincorporated Greenburgh residents and small businesses in the “green” option of a new contract. Going “green” means obtaining electric supply from renewable sources – wind power, solar power, hydropower – rather than fossil fuels.  It costs more but it helps address climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental issues.

At Mr. Feiner’s request, the CGCA reached out to the community (9/13/20) for advice on what action the Town should take.  One resident recommended the “green” option.  Every other response received to date recommended that any new contract should be on an “Opt In” basis.  More information was also requested regarding the future savings to lower-income families.

The Executive Board of the CGCA is making no recommendation but rather providing the following information so residents can better understand what is being considered and are in a better position to ask questions.

As noted, those who have not “opted out” of the current contract are paying 7.709 cents per kWh for electric supply.  According to Westchester Power, the average resident uses 669 kilowatt hours a month.  Thus the average bill for the month, including 4% sales tax, would be $53.63 for electric supply.  If you were enrolled in the “green” option, it would cost 7.959 cents per kWh and the average monthly bill, including tax, would be $55.38 for electric supply.

As the attached table indicates, Property # 1 and Property # 2 paid 5.5 cents per kWh.  This means an average monthly bill for 669 kWh, including tax, would be $38.27.  The savings for the “standard” option equals $15.36 which is 28.6% lower than the ESCO charged.  For the “green” option, the savings equals $17.11 and is 30.9% lower.  Even if one subtracts 64 cents for the monthly billing and processing payment fee, the monthly savings would be substantial.

According to the CGCA’s understanding, any new contract the Town participates in would be for the “green” option and would be offered on an “Opt Out” basis.  Savings of 10% on their electric bill would be promised to “x” number of lower income residents and the Town could be eligible for up to $250,000 in grant money for sustainable projects.  Westchester Power plans to go out to bid this month for a new contract, with a starting bid lower than 7.65 cents per kWh.

If you wish to participate in tonight’s Town Board discussion on this matter, see instructions below:

PUBLIC DISCUSSION Advance signup via PublicComment@GreenburghNY.com is required. Please mention ESCO or Sustainable Westchester in the subject line or the body of the email. Sustainable Westchester 100% Renewable ESCO

Ella Preiser, CGCASecretary

Electric Rates - Con Ed vs. ESCO

 A Message to All:

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) Executive Board is providing you information documenting the kWh cost for electric supply paid for the last eighteen (18) billing cycles by those who “Opted Out” of the contract with the ESCO Constellation in which the Town Board enrolled almost 12,000 residential and small business owners.

As the below table shows, the latest cost (mainly for the very warm month of July) was 5.9 cents per kWh to five households that “Opted Out” versus the 7.709 cents per kWh that those still in the ESCO are paying.  Air conditioners use a considerable amount of electricity, and this mere 1.8 cents per kWh cost difference has added up to a substantial sum of money saved for the month of July.

The current two-year contract expires in December.  At the August 11, 2020 Town Board work session, Dan Welsh from Westchester Power discussed a meeting he held earlier that day with about 20 participating municipalities regarding a new contract to purchase electricity from an ESCO.  The decision was made to go out to bid once again for a “fixed rate” contract with a starting price of 7.65 cents per kWh.  That is a bit less expensive than the current contract.  At the meeting Supervisor Feiner mentioned the CGCA opposes the current “Opt Out” provision.  Mr. Welsh noted an “Opt In” option wouldn’t work and recommended that going “green” solves a lot of problems.  Although the cost would be a couple of dollars more each month to each resident, the green option addresses climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental injustice.  Mr. Welsh noted low income residents could receive savings through the Community Solar program.

Stay tuned for what the Town Board decides.

Stay safe and well.

Ella Preiser, CGCA Secretary

A Memo from The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations

Starting January 2019, the Greenburgh Town Board enrolled all residential and small business owners for a two year contract with the ESCO Constellation at a cost of 7.709 cents per kWh of electricity.  Meanwhile, Con Edison variable rates have been at historic lows over the life of this contract to date.  

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations has been keeping track of the cost per kWh of some residents who “Opted Out” of this contract.  They have been saving money each month.  Visit the CGCA website and view the posting of July 27th which includes a table showing the cost per kWh that these “Opted Out” residents have been paying. https://cgca.info/news

Contact the CGCA if you need help understanding your Con Edison bill.

cgca1955@gmail.com

What Are You Paying For Electricity? Con Ed vs. ESCO

A letter from the CGCA Executive Board
By Ella Preiser, Communications Director

A Message to All,

The Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) Executive Board continues to have concerns about the fact that the Town Board has not provided the promised “updates” to the almost 12,000 residential and small business users it enrolled in an ESCO for electricity supply starting in January 2019.  The original concept was simple and good – if a large number of users joined together to buy electricity, they could secure a lower price and save money.  Westchester Power negotiated a two-year contract with the ESCO Constellation at a rate of 7.709¢ per kWh.  The price seemed reasonable in January 2019, but that monthly rate has been considerably higher than the variable Con Edison rate over the past 16 billing cycles.  The CGCA is concerned that thousands of Greenburgh users are unaware they are currently enrolled in this ESCO and it is costing them additional money each month.

In response to issues raised by resident Ken Stahn and the CGCA, the Town scheduled another meeting (5/26/20) with Westchester Power regarding this contract. Westchester Power again acknowledged that Con Edison rates have been at historic lows and noted users can “Opt Out” of the ESCO at any time with no penalty.  In an email blast (5/28/20), Supervisor Paul Feiner provided a link to that meeting but he also provided erroneous information regarding the cost and an incorrect phone number to “Opt Out” of the ESCO.  Although he subsequently corrected the information after Mr. Stahn brought the errors to his attention, the archived email on the Town’s website still contains the errors.

Don’t be confused by the Westchester Power claims that those in the ESCO since 2016 continue to have monthly cost savings.  The below table provides the variable Con Edison cost per kWh for the last sixteen billing cycles that users who “Opted Out” have been paying.  As the table illustrates, the cost to the five residential owners (Properties # 1-5) for the latest bill (mainly the month of May 2020) was 4.6 to 4.8¢ per kWh.  That is three cents per kWh (or about 40%) cheaper than the rate the ESCO charges.  Westchester Power claims the average residential customer uses 669 kWh per month.  Based on that figure, the average residential customer in the ESCO paid $21.63 more during the month of May.

ESCO:    669 x 7.709¢ = $51.57 + 2.06 (4% tax) = $53.63
Con Ed:  669 x 4.600¢ = $30.77 + 1.23 (4% tax) = $32.00

If you subtract the monthly billing and processing fee (64 cents), the savings are still huge.

With the summer months now started and the current heat wave under way, many of us will be using air conditioners and consuming huge kWh numbers of electricity.

The Town feels it has no responsibility to keep the almost 12,000 residential and small business electric users it enrolled in this ESCO informed about the additional cost they have been paying in their last sixteen bills.That is why the CGCA is posting this information and urging you to check your monthly Con Edison bill and compare the kWh cost for electricity you are paying.  Please pass this information on to friends and neighbors.

Stay safe, well and informed.

ESCO Probably Costing You Money Instead Of Saving It

From Ella Preiser,  Communications Administrator, Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations

A Message to All:

At this time when so many people are out of work and small business owners are concerned about their survival, some Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations (CGCA) representatives are deeply troubled that the Greenburgh Town Board has not taken the opportunity to inform people about a possible way to save some money.

The CGCA urges you to check your monthly Con Edison bill.  If the bill indicates your electricity supplier is Constellation and your supply cost is 7.709¢ per kWh, you were probably enrolled in this ESCO (starting January 2019) by the Greenburgh Town Board.  If enrolled, you have been paying considerably more than those of us who “opted out” of this ESCO.  Please review the attached table which provides information on the kWh costs per billing cycle for seven different property owners who did “opt out.”  These figures were taken from actual Con Edison bills.  The first five properties are residences. Properties #6 and #7 are small businesses.

For anyone who isn’t familiar with the “history” of the Town’s involvement with this ESCO, attached is information you may find helpful.  At the very least, skip to the last lines of the document below which illustrates the cost savings ($37.15 and $115.53) for a single month for two different properties.  Paying the higher price could be very costly over the two-year contract.

The Greenburgh Town Board is not alone.  Twenty-six other Westchester municipalities participate in this CCA.   The concept was good but it is not working to the advantage of electricity users.  The ESCO named Constellation is raking in millions of dollars from residents and small business owners.

If you are paying too much, contact the Town Board for an explanation of why they did not keep you informed.  Feel free to pass this message on to your neighbors.

Stay safe and well.

Ella Preiser, CGCA Secretary

First Document:

First CCA Contract – How it began – Modest Savings

In 2015, the Town Board discussed with residents the possibility of participating in a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program.  The concept was simple and good – if a large number of users joined together to purchase huge numbers of kilowatt hours of electricity, they could negotiate a cheaper price. Supervisor Paul Feiner issued an email blast 9/29/15 claiming that participation in a CCA could reduce our Con Edison bills by “hundreds of dollars.”  

In January of 2016, the Town Board passed a local law granting Westchester Power authority through a CCA program to procure electric supply from an ESCO (Energy Supply Company) for a two-year contract for all unincorporated Greenburgh residential and small business users who did not “Opt Out.”  The program began with June 2016 meter read dates at a fixed cost of $0.0738 per kWh for the “Basic Supply Option” or $0.0768 for the “Green Option.”  The cost was subsequently increased for residential users to $0.0770 per kWh for the “Basic Supply Option” and $ 0.0800 for the “Green Option.”  There was no penalty to “Opt Out.”

In April 2018, residents received notice from Westchester Power that the rate of the soon-to-expire contract would “remain in place until your January 2019 meter read date.”  No approval for this extension was given by the Town Board. Once again residents were made aware they could “Opt Out” of the program without penalty.

Resident Ken Stahn had opted out of the program. Despite his repeated requests to the Town over the two-year period, no information was provided to the thousands of residents and small business owners the Town Board had enrolled in this ESCO. Thus, unincorporated Greenburgh electricity users had no way of knowing whether they were actually saving money and/or whether they should take advantage of the “Opt Out” provision.   The Council of Greenburgh Civic Association (CGCA) was asked to get involved.  Following a unanimous vote at the June 19, 2018 CGCA meeting, a letter was sent to Supervisor Feiner seeking information.  

The CGCA received a response.  In an email blast on July 24, 2018, Mr. Feiner reported that over the 25-month period from June 2016 through June 2018, residents in the “Basic Supply Option” had saved an average $7.78/month, residents in the “Green Option” saved $6.00/month, small business owners in the “Basic Supply Option” saved $2.01/month, but it actually cost small business owners in the “Green Option” 22 cents a month.  

However, for the very first time the public learned that only 52.67% of the savings actually came from the supply cost per kWh that had been negotiated.  Much of the total savings (47.33%) came from a $1.20/month billing and processing payment charge to each customer and sales tax avoidance (3% for residential and 7.375% for small businesses) on the delivery portion of the monthly bill. Savings from avoiding these two charges had never been mentioned earlier.  And, these two savings were not unique to the ESCO in which the Town enrolled users, but rather were available to any customer enrolled in any ESCO.  

Second CCA Contract – Huge Loses

Although the savings had been modest, the Town Board nevertheless voted to continue participation in the CCA for another two-year contract.  Beginning with the January 2019 meter read date, all residential and small business owners were enrolled for electric supply in the “Standard Option” at a cost of $0.07709 per kWh with the ESCO Constellation unless they “Opted Out.” 

Resident Ken Stahn, who had opted out again, noted each month his Con Edison per kWh costs were lower than the 7.709¢ per kWh costs charged by the  ESCO in which the Town had enrolled residential and small business owners. Mr. Stahn’s continued requests to the Town to provide information to the public were ignored.

Finally, on October 15, 2019, Westchester Power was invited to make a presentation at a Town Board work session.  At that meeting it was revealed that the Town had enrolled a total of 11,777 unincorporated Greenburgh residential and small business owners in the ESCO Constellation.  At the meeting, there was brief acknowledgement that the default Con Edison price for electric supply was at a historic low, but more time was spent blaming higher bills on Con Edison delivery charges.  Praise was given for the metric tons of carbon saved – although Greenburgh deserved little credit since few were enrolled in the “Green” option. It was stated electric supply costs would probably increase next year and reference was made to saving money regarding a Community Solar Project.  The need for a public update was mentioned, but there was no follow through. 

Some CGCA representatives who had opted out of the CCA contract felt the Town Board should inform the public about the higher costs to them.   Data was collected from the actual Con Edison bills of eight properties – five residential and three small businesses – from different areas.  Seven of those properties had opted out of the CCA contract but one business was enrolled.  The data revealed that the seven properties that had opted out had saved between $50 and $700 over the 12 billing periods starting in January 2019.  The one business property enrolled by the Town in the ESCO actually paid more than $1,000 in additional costs over the 12-month period.  Rest assured, that business promptly opted out when presented with this information!

At Mr. Stahn’s request, the Town Board invited Westchester Power to make another presentation at its March 10, 2020 work session.  The representatives again acknowledged that Con Edison default rates were at historic lows. The presentation included a slide showing that those enrolled in the ESCO paid $1,133,210 more for supply, with the additional monthly costs being between $5.71 and $6.92 for residents and between $4.46 and $10.07 for businesses.  However, it was emphasized that those enrolled still had savings over the past three years.  Also emphasized was the amount of carbon saved, likely Con Edison cost increases later in the year, the community solar project and how helpful Westchester Power could be to utility users.  

Ella Preiser, Dorrine Livson and Ken Stahn attended the meeting.  Two tables were presented showing the data collected for the eight properties. Westchester Power representatives were dismissive of the data provided because it contained actual (four-decimal place) per kWh supply costs and did not include a small “Merchant function charge.” They emphasized Con Edison’s rates were unpredictable and the bill was difficult to read.   The Town mentioned the need to provide information to the public.  The next day (3/11/20) at the regular Town Board meeting, Mrs. Livson mentioned the more than one million dollar cost to Greenburgh users and tens of millions to other Westchester County electric users. She asked the Town to release such information.  The Town once again remained silent.

At the April 22, 2020 meeting, held via Zoom, Mrs. Livson again asked the Town Board to inform the public about the electric costs.  The Board agreed to invite Westchester Power to the first work session in May.

ARE YOU PAYING TOO MUCH?

See the attached table which has been revised and lists the one-decimal place costs Con Edison recommends to compare ESCO charges. To determine if you are paying too much, examine the electric supply page on your Con Edison bill and compare the cost per kWh with those shown on the table for the seven properties.  

Contrary to the information presented on March 10, it may be costing you far more than the $6 to $10 per month Westchester Power mentioned.  Just as an example, following is computation illustrating the cost differences of recent bills for Property #5 (residential) and Property #6 (business).  As you can see Property #5 saved $37.15 in just one month and Property #6 saved $115.53 in one month.

1374 kWh @ 7.709¢/kWh = $105.92 + 4.24 (4% sales tax) = $110.02           

1374 kWh @ 5.100¢/kWh = $  70.07 + 2.80 (4% sales tax) = $  72.87

4086 kWh @ 7.709¢/kWh = $314.99 + 26.38 (8.375% sales tax) = $341.37

4086 kWh @ 5.100¢/kWh = $208.39 + 17.45 (8.375% sales tax) = $225.84

                                                                                               

Also note:  Westchester Power cannot rely on 47% savings from other sources on this contract.  The $1.20 per month billing and processing fee remained at $1.20 for businesses but was reduced to 60¢ per month for residents in 2019 and is now 64¢ per month.   Since last spring, the monthly bills no longer mention sales tax avoidance (now 4% for residential and 8.375% for small businesses) on the delivery portion of the bill. 

Silence Won’t Be Purchased With Appointments

Appointments to various committees happen quite often in the Town. Many are rewards for either supporting Mr Feiner or his schemes. For instance, prior to retiring to Florida, his friend and confidante Alan Hochberg was appointed by Mr Feiner as the Deputy Town Supervisor. Mr Hochberg, also a convicted felon just as Mr Feiner, chaired other committees, including a veterans group for the Town. We understand there’s an unspoken quid pro quo with the former resident and Mr Feiner.


At a recent Council of Greenburgh Civic Association meeting that Worthington Woodlands Civic Association President Dorrine Livson attended, we learned she received an offer from Mr Feiner to be nominated for a vacant seat on the Town of Greenburgh Planning Board. Mr Feiner’s offer, while appropriate at face value, seems like a classic move to silence another of his growing list of outspoken critics. In his correspondence to her, he says, “I think you would be an outstanding member and am confident that you would be fair with each applicant. I also appreciate the constructive suggestions you have made to the town over the years.” Finally, there’s something the Supervisor said that we can agree with!


Apparently an offer was first made to Edgemont resident Jeff Sherwin for the vacant seat on the planning board. It appears that after Mr Sherwin declined Mr Feiner’s offer, Ms Livson declined as well. So now two critics of Mr Feiner failed to be enticed into servitude. We’ve written extensively of Ms Livson and the Worthington Woodlands Civic Association. For those of you who do not know of Mr Sherwin, he is a significant contributor to the Edgemont Incorporation Council, the group which is seeking to get a referendum in the Town as Edgemont seeks to incorporate as a Village and become independent from the control of the Town. In particular, these residents believe they are better suited to control the destiny of their community than Mr Feiner and his Board.

In an article in a weekly newspaper that covers Edgemont and parts of the Town, Mr Feiner was quoted as stating, “I have spoken to others who also believe that you would be an asset to the planning board.” Mr Sherwin was quoted responding, “I believe Paul Feiner is not pro-incorporation. I believe he has a mission to thwart incorporation. I think his asking me to join the planning board was part of a plan, either by distracting me, or by trading favors, or by getting me to say ‘no’ without sufficient reason so he could say Edgemont doesn’t really care about zoning and planning.”


For the last several years, Mr Feiner has pretended to seek approval from his Town Board on numerous projects. As those who follow Town politics are aware, his Board has become nothing more than a rubber-stamp arm of his administration, approving any and all projects of his desire. Project after project appears to get unceremoniously pushed through if it’s one favored by Mr Feiner. The average taxpayer, saddled with exorbitant fees and demands usually take a back seat to the big developers. They also rarely, if ever, get an opportunity to speak to the Board at a work session or in private as so many of the big developers often do.


One project that is currently in litigation is with the S&R developers who are trying to build on a parcel of land they purchased adjacent to the Greenburgh Nature Center. It is being held up for several reasons that never should have seen the light of day. The Town’s zoning maps, changes erroneously made by the Town Board and a covenant held by the neighboring convent of nuns nearby should mandate a dismissal of this project! Regardless, this is yet another lawsuit that is costing the taxpayers more money that we shouldn’t be paying. Planning Board member Hugh Schwartz, whom we have had respect for previously, is regularly vociferous in his objection to the Edgemont Incorporation Council effort. He has had numerous articles published stating so as well as countering those in favor of the effort. Interestingly, Mr Schwartz’s wife is an employee of the law firm involved with the lawsuit against the Town! While we’ll give Mr and Mrs Schwartz the benefit of the doubt, this alludes to substantiating our case with both Ms Livson and Mr Sherwin.


Having a one political party Town works for those members of it. But not having any opposing or dissenting views on the Board robs the residents of fairness, fresh ideas and an ethical compass. Mr Feiner is asking his “critics” to join him on the boards - but that takes away their civic duty to speak out for, against or critique a development as they cannot go before the Town Board, Planning Board or the Zoning Board to present their private point of view or even represent their Civic Association. While it makes him look like the good guy, he is really trying to silence them knowing what they can and cannot do according to the Town’s Ethics Code. This unethical abuse needs to end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Government Should Remain Neutral - Addendum

Painting the picture of volunteerism and helping the elderly, Mr Feiner did a mailing on behalf of another company in February that cost taxpayers 48¢ each at face value. There are about 35,000 households in Greenburgh. If he sent this mailing to those households, without duplicates, he would have spent $17,150! We typically refer to this as campaigning as this mailing venue allows him to keep his name front and center with the Town of Greenburgh constituency. As a one-time effort, or a quarterly summary of what is taking place in the Town, etc., we might be more understanding. But we’re not. The reason we’re not is because he does these mailings multiple times a week at taxpayer expense and still does multiple summary mailings. Then at budget time, he insists that all the other depatrtments make reductions!

This particular mailing was to promote a “not-for-profit” company that provides rides for seniors citizens to their doctor appointments at no charge, using volunteer drivers to shuttle the seniors. This is a laudable venture at face value. But once you dig just a little bit, you quickly learn that the founders and operators of this organization are doctors, either come from the medical community or are somehow involved in the medical community. Could they simply be doing this to make sure their patients continue to show up for their appointments, ensuring Medicare payments? They claim that the seniors do not need to pay for their rides, can typically get one ride per day except under certain circumstances which are not detailed on their website, and that they do accept donations. What they don’t discuss is how they actually pay for whatever their operating expenses might be.

While this organization may or may not have an ulterior motive and we believe they do, Mr Feiner should not be promoting them, especially with a 48¢ mailer consisting of three pages (two sheets) printed at Town Hall on taxpayer copiers and paper. In fact, taxpayers are charged 25¢ per print when they ask for a copy of a document from Town Hall. This is another possible expense to taxpayers of 3 x 25¢ = 75¢ x 35,000 = $26,250. So, using medical terminology, this is a non-billable advertising expense for the doctors of $43,400 that Mr Feiner decided without taxpayer input to simply give away on their behalf. We’re pretty sure the doctors involved in this can afford to advertise.

In the end, we’re suspicious because Unincorporated Greenburgh has roughly half of the Town properties listed as tax-exempt. Instead of pushing another tax exempt company, perhaps Mr Feiner and his Town Board should focus on the P.I.L.O.T. Program. This program is geared toward receiving payment from tax exempts for services rendered to them, or Payment In Lieu Of Taxes. Or, Mr Feiner could simply follow the law and not cost us in court fees and guilty verdicts as he did in the $6.5 million dollars from the Fortress Bible Church case, or the $1.2 million dollars for breaking the lease with the County for the WestHelp property, or the loss of $3.5 million dollars + remediation for the former Frank’s Nursery property on Dobbs Ferry Road, or collect on unpaid tickets through the Greenburgh courts, or, the $25 million in unpaid property taxes, or, well you get the idea.

The constant campaigning by Mr Feiner would not be so difficult to accept if he wasn’t spending our money to do so. He has a significant political campaign war-chest and it continues to grow thanks to taxpayer largess – although not by our choice. It has to end. Only then will we have A Better Greenburgh.

Government Should Remain Neutral

A short time ago, Mr Feiner did his routine email blast with the coveted GBList. We'll reiterate he is violating daily yet another court's guilty penalty and order by refusing to turn the list over to the resident who had requested it. She was refused, appealed, refused a second time, sued and won in court for access to it. This is significant mostly because Mr Feiner has always been content to violate the laws he doesn't like without consequence as well as the trust of Town residents. However, Mr Feiner wholeheartedly endorses his developer friends’ projects du jour, usually at an extreme cost to neighborhoods throughout the Town. Now, however the other shoe appears to be on his foot.

We were originally going to write about how Mr Feiner has again mounted a campaign blitz on behalf of his friends from GameOn 365 and their most recent push to build a mega-sports complex on Dobbs Ferry Road. You'll recall they tried to proceed with acquiring the property with an illegal lease scheme concocted and championed by Mr Feiner. Then he tried to gift the property to them at a significantly undervalued price with obscenely minimal payments over 13 years. When another area resident and business owner offered to purchase the property for double the amount at $3.5 million in cash and pay for all site contaminated remediation, Mr Feiner refused to entertain their offer claiming it was not a serious one. What he should have done was publicize all the facts about the property, interested parties and their offers. Clearly, the Town could have held the upper hand while being open and transparent. But once Mr Feiner began the closed door, back room meetings, that ship sailed and sank. Or did it?

Now, many years later, the property remains vacant and still contaminated because the Town Board has kowtowed to Mr Feiner's wishes to finagle a way to gift the property to GameOn 365. Both Mr Feiner and his Town Board have not done the right thing with this (now-reverted) residential property! While Mr Feiner should have the taxpayers best interests at heart, he's more interested in helping his friends. Apparently the City of Yonkers isn't the only municipality with a Friends and Family Plan for developers.

Regardless of Mr Feiner and the Town Board's illogical, perhaps immoral, if not illegal, actions with the former Frank's Nursery property on Dobbs Ferry Road, this article is about to shift gears and focus on the over-development of our Unincorporated Town property. We have bemoaned the fact that every sliver of space in Unincorporated Greenburgh is being gobbled up by developers who then approach the Administration and tout the benefits of mega-construction on the land.True to form, Mr Feiner instructs his Board how to vote and the developer's presentation sails through and before you can say, "Wait just a second," the Town Board declares themselves the lead agency and the deal is done.

Here's a few such examples to what we are referring. First, we'll go with Brightview Assisted Living Center. Mr Feiner touted the availability and need for Greenburgh residents to have a place they could spend their remaining years. What was uncovered and at first denied by Mr Feiner was that someone without assets and on Medicaid would not be allowed to move in. In typical Feiner-form, he finally acquiesced, admitting he was still in favor of it, apparently the poorer Medicaid recipient-residents be damned. This mammoth structure looming over Rt 119 is adding to the infrastructure burden and not contributing any relief to the residents. At least the developers are making out well.

Second, he is entertaining a proposal on a triangular strip of land between the Sprain Brook Parkway off of Payne Street for a 96 room assisted living facility. Access and egress will happen through one of the side streets off of Payne Street. The increase in traffic through a residential neighborhood, we're sure, will be proposed as either negligible or non-existent as these are retired, non-driving occupants. Whatever the developer wants is probably what the traffic study will say. Interestingly, all of these projects are green-lighted (pun intended) regardless of what the traffic study says. This will increase traffic and further burden the infrastructure.

Third, was the Westhab project in Fulton Park, proposed as a 7-story apartment building and finally constructed as a three story gulag-style building that is an eyesore to the neighborhood, Rt 119 and will ultimately become a Section 8 housing facility. Throughout all of the disingenuous posturing from the Town Board, residents were continually told that no decision had been made by the Town Board and they could still say no to the project. What they conveniently left out was that no open decision was made, nor was it made public. The deal was done with the neighborhood, the infrastructure and traffic to the area be damned.

Fourth, there are several plans to build apartments without parking on Central Avenue since Mr Feiner and his Board forced a new tax onto service stations, forcing them to close (opposite Scarsdale Ford). There's also Dromore Road off of Central Avenue. The pièce de résistance is the mega-development that's been presented in North Elmsford's Eastview area. Over 100 acres have been green-lighted by Mr Feiner and his Board to build more of the same. Mr Feiner has never met a developer whose plans he didn't endorse. The over-sized development there is another added burden to our infrastructure as well increasing traffic. The attitude at Town hall is that traffic is already congested so a little more won't matter.

The latest debacle to be proposed is in Ardsley at what was the old Akzo Nobel Chemical site that was in the area of 9A and the Saw Mill River Parkway. STOP! Mr Feiner says its not a good location. He says the developers should reconsider building there because it will, ahem, tax the infrastructure. All developers in the area know that there is no project that Mr Feiner won't give a thumbs-up to as long as his precious gated community is left alone. Infrastructure be damned! Could it be the carcinogens left on the site that might poison staff and residents? No. What's good for the goose, perhaps? No. Too much traffic? No. Overburdening the schools? No, not even close. Then what could possibly cause Mr Feiner to be against another development?

Votes. That's right. Mr Feiner is afraid to upset the Villages of Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry and Hastings. He will lose beau coup votes from the otherwise solid stalwarts at election time. How can we tell? It's simple really, but an even more obvious example is the cleaning out of the Saw Mill River after the massive flooding that we believe was, in part, caused by all the over-development approved by Mr Feiner and his Town Board. He rallied alongside Elmsford's Babbitt Court residents, Ardsley and the other river towns in Greenburgh. More importantly however, is that he did absolutely nothing about helping the Greenburgh residents along the Bronx River corridor. Why? They cannot bring enough votes against him in an election so he knows he can ignore them - and he and his Town Board does just that.

ABG believes the site for this newly proposed multi-family metropolis is a viable one in a location that will not intrude on any residential neighborhoods. And, lo and behold, there is an extremely successful sports complex nearby for the families to use. We understand they might be looking to expand and this could be just the venue to help them along. We accept that Mr Feiner routinely lies to the constituency, the courts and God knows who else. And, it was during his 22-year tenure that the infrastructure was neglected. Hardly a valid argument for him to make now. But we needn't accept this bad behavior from our government leaders. Politicians should remain neutral with developers and their projects and not advertise on behalf of them. They should also invest in its infrastructure, not use its failings as an excuse. It's time for a change. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh

Don’t Worry, I Promised

Trying to get a jump on the GameOn 365’s latest application to the Town, Mr Feiner has once again tried to move the process along by emailing thousands of residents via his cherished GBList. This is the same list which he and the Town have been court-ordered to turn over to a resident, whose repeatedly denied FOIL-ed application forced her into court. Subsequently, the court found in her favor. Transparency? Open government? Honesty in government? You decide.

According to Mr Feiner’s email, “Game On has filed a petition to amend the zoning code to initiate a review of a proposal to build an indoor and outdoor privately owned recreation facility on parts of the Golf Range property.” He continues, “Currently, the property is not zoned to allow recreational uses. The project would include an indoor space housed in a permanent structure covering about 107,630 square feet of the approximately 32 acre property. The remaining land would be preserved as open space and used for recreation fields and related uses. The driving range would stay open.”

While the presentation sounds innocuous enough, which is always accompanied by soft pastel drawings and paintings. He discusses how this offering is different from the previous “sports bubble” that had been proposed. He continues by saying, “Members of the Town Board and I have not made any decisions on whether to approve or reject the petition.” We hardly believe this to be the truth. We read a post by a resident on another site and have chosen to include it here as it succinctly sums up Mr Feiner’s position with GameOn 365:
“WPEyesNEars:
Here's the quote from PF: "Members of the Town Board and I have not made any decisions on whether to approve or reject the petition," Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner said." This is an outright lie. He was in favor of it when he tried to illegally lease the property to them, then sell it to them at an undervalued price, the put it on the ballot as a proposition, then refuse to entertain the House of Sports offer for double the amount plus remediation, then skew the contamination study to move the process along for GO365, and finally to have an "auction" until the auctioneer said no one would bid for contaminated land and finally, when TL said remediation costs would be no more than $100k. They have been doing everything they could to give this land to GO365. Try writing the real story!”

What is most disturbing throughout all of this is the lack of respect Mr Feiner has shown to the residents of the area. Numerous Civic Associations, individual residents, families and leaders have objected to all of the GameOn 365 proposals. Mr Feiner has routinely tried to change the position offering to broker meetings and meet individually with residents. His “divide and conquer” methodology has been a proven winner for him. The residents continue to say they only want residential housing built on the property, not commercial.

Once the former Frank’s Nursery property was acquired by the Town, Mr Feiner and his Board sat on their hands and frequently ignored the contamination within it. When the police department, the courts and the library all were suggested as tenants of the property, the severe contamination of the site prohibited it. During the GameOn 365 debacle created and fostered by Mr Feiner and his Board’s incompetence. Elm Street Sports, Inc., of Ardsley, offered twice the money for the land, plus total remediation for the property. Mr Feiner said, “No! Theirs was not a serious offer.” One of the owners said at a Town Board meeting he was always serious when discussing money.

Now that GameOn 365 has come back with a reworked proposal, albeit a moderately changed one, they’ve decided instead of an 83-foot tall Sports Bubble to build a warehouse-sized building on the east border of Golf Driving Range property line, closest to the Frank’s Nursery property. In effect, they too are thumbing their noses at the residents by moving it even closer to the existing residential housing. We know from our various meetings with Town Civic Associations that this is still unacceptable. In fact, we wouldn’t be surprised if Mr Feiner orchestrated this latest scheme to invade the neighborhood.

The Town Board sits impotent, afraid to upset their elective apple carts as Mr Feiner controls their destiny. Ultimately, and unfortunately, we believe that since Mr Feiner wants GameOn 365 to succeed, and he always gets his way, he will help them get their approval. He’s content to remove more of our green space while adding to Greenburgh’s Corporate Park environment. After all, we believe he promised it to GameOn 365. This has to stop. The electorate keeps voting him into office and it’s time for a change. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.