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

Dying A Slow Death Until They Die In Office

The governor has sent “tax relief” checks to property owners in the guise of helping the beleaguered NY taxpayer. The Town has not. What may have helped the governor would have been to announce that instead of trying to buy your vote, he’s announcing an infrastructure overhaul that has been needed for the last hundred years or so to address the cacophony of issues plaguing New York: failing roadways, flooding, failing railways, crumbling bridges, ruptured water mains, outdated airports, traffic congestion and more. Instead, this move highlights the kick-the-issues-down-the-road practice all politicians subscribe to because it’s not sexy stuff. They profess these issues will be addressed but later become someone else’s problem if they ever leave office. But in New York, as in Greenburgh, you have to die in office to officially leave. It’s killing us.

The twin “Honda” bridges (aka New Tappan Zee) across the Hudson River exacerbates the ineffectiveness of what is transpiring with our government’s stale and feeble thinking. We recently saw two tractor-trailers jackknifed on the bridge, stalling traffic for over an hour. No one was surprised. Let’s face it, with the volume of traffic travelling that roadway, we know we can expect more. So, when the planning stages produced two bridges with a new rubberized surface much slicker in the wet weather than the previous concrete, no rail, no real HOV lanes, a bike path, viewing areas, eagles’ nests, and other millennial contrivances, traffic volume and flow appeared to have been a glaringly absent topic.

We experience daily this thinking at local, state and federal levels as project after project transform into boondoggle after boondoggle. The difference locally and in our Town is the failure to “play the game” and think outside the box is destroying what was once a dynamic Town! And, at the same time, every NY politician – mostly all democrats – have remained in office for far too long. Regardless of New York’s issues and us specifically, we have the same archaic, stale and ineffective thinking bombarding us daily. An example would be any project will have 10% low-income, ground floor retail (which over and over again stay vacant) and apartments above the retail for Millennials and of course with no parking as we’re continually told Millennials don’t drive or own cars. Yet, when you look at Hartsdale Avenue going into the center of Hartsdale, there is not nearly enough parking for those people living in those apartment buildings! When it rains and there is flooding, they must (re)move their cars to higher ground. Some thought a recently passed weak Comprehensive Plan would help the residents. It was so watered down it became a laughingly simple political document that won’t protect the integrity or longevity of the Town.

Project after project gets approved by a reticent Town Board incapable of breaking free of the servitude that grips them to their master. As long as they are instructed to vote in favor of a project, pass a code change or waive the craftily enacted standards that favor developers, they will remain on his Board. Falter from that narrative and be jettisoned in the blink of an eye, commonly referred to as being “Sonya’d.” After Town Board member Sonya Brown publicly exposed Mr Feiner’s racial bias against the minority community in the Fairview section of town, she was shunned by the Town Board, ignored by many in Town Hall (also fearful for their jobs) and dropped from the re-election ticket for now-Councilman Ken Jones. Mr Jones learned quickly that to get along he must go along. Sadly, we had been hopeful that he would exhibit a modicum of independence only to have the electorate be disappointed yet again as he tows the Feiner -line.

The Elmwood Country Club was sold to a developer who has an arsenal of attorneys at their beck and call who know how to play the approval game in Greenburgh. We’re told they met secretly with Mr Feiner and probably his Town Board as Mr Feiner laid out the groundwork they needed to follow to ensure successful completion of their yet to be proposed project. First, meet with his arch-enemy, the President of the Worthington Woodlands Civic Association and get a buy-in from their President and ultimately their members. You’ll recall that they were the ones who successfully stopped Mr Feiner’s GameOn 365 from erecting (really inflating) an 83 ft tall “sports bubble” at 715 Dobbs Ferry Road where the former Frank’s Nursery had been. Stung by this embarrassing defeat after several residents exposed Mr Feiner and GameOn 365’s collusion, Mr Feiner has worked tirelessly to find any way possible to get the flawed and failing GameOn 365 project to reach fruition. Why follow this same path of failing ideas? Do as I say, not as I do.

The Hartsdale Neighbors Association sparked a debate about their 4-Corners (4C) and it’s need of renovation and uplifting, citing that it’s been a revolving door of failed businesses and desolate retail spaces due to the Town’s permit process, zoning, lack of parking and bereft planning processes. In light of the Edgemont Incorporation effort, word got back to the Town Board about new talks of a Hartsdale Incorporation based on what happens to the Unincorporated Town (which includes Hartsdale) should the Edgemont incorporation succeed. Concerns festered over what would happen to the Hartsdale community and the town budget, town services and staff. Mr Feiner and his Board were rapt as Inspired Spaces made a presentation of solutions for the failed and ignored area. They certainly embody their motto, “We seem to care.” But since the only real beneficiaries of remodeling of the 4C area is the landlords, we doubt these plans will get much traction.

But now that the Edgemont incorporation has been successfully stalled, Town politicians needed a new crisis to divert attention from what is really going on with finances, personnel, insider developer approvals and more. Thankfully, whenever in need and there is no apparent cause to latch onto, play the race card. This time it was espoused by Town Clerk Judith Beville, an African-American woman who charged in a series of emails that she, as an African-American woman, was being targeted by all of the members of the Town Board, but not her meal ticket Mr Feiner, that had racial overtones. She made sure to not bite the hand that feeds her so to speak.

Racism is no stranger at our Town Hall, at least during the Feiner Administration(s). And while these episodes have always been craftily ignored, swept under the rug or simply ignored, racism is alive and well at 177 Hillside Avenue. Regardless of previous events, Ms Beville sent a series of emails alluding to racism and then actually charging that this was done to her specifically because she was an African-American woman in a high-profile position in the Town. Whether or not it was true almost seemed inconsequential as she began to play to her base who showed up to the Town Board meeting on her behalf. There were other statements made about the Deputy Town Clerk that appeared to cross the line regarding HIPAA requirements, legal requirements and of course common courtesy. In fact, toward the end of the Town Clerk discussion portion of the last Town Board meeting, all of the Council members as well as Town Attorney Tim Lewis were repeatedly asking her to stop talking as she was probably violating HIPAA laws by discussing the medical problems of the former Deputy Town Clerk! Punishment for these transgressions? Not in Greenburgh.

While Ms Beville was unwilling to remain silent after the Board pleaded with her, Councilman Sheehan stated that the entire episode was not a racial matter and that the Deputy said she was going to quit because she had to keep training new people as well as continuing to do her own job as well. Because of the seemingly endless stream of trainings and her workload, she said she had had enough. Apparently, it was either Mr Feiner or the Town Board (or both) who decided to create and fill a new position at roughly $70+k per year with benefits without approval, a budget item or candidate search. THIS sounds like our Town Board. They also stated that the Town Clerk’s office would still have the same number of staffers working there, but training could now be done by Ms Beville. And yet Mr Feiner seems compelled to complain about the Fire Districts personnel issues. Those who live in glass houses should not cast any stones.

Word in the Town Hall hallways is that the Town Board doesn’t have faith that Ms Beville can adequately train those new people and that’s why they wanted to keep the former Deputy, even if it was in a different position. Maybe so. This isn’t the way to run a Town. It’s also proof of why we need term limits, even though those in office will never agree to relinquish their power until they've padded their coffers enough and are ready themselves to step down. When the Democratic electorate finally wises up, maybe we will see a change and get some new blood, new ideas and better thinking. Complacency is also alive and well in Greenburgh. It needs to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Opposition to Zoning Change Increases

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Hartsdale Park Association (hartsdalepark@yahoo.com) sent a letter to its membership regarding the important zoning change the Town Board is considering to benefit GameOn 365, a for-profit commercial entity. It details many of the aspects this decision will have as it will negatively impact the entire Town, not just the Dobbs Ferry corridor.

Dear Hartsdale Park Residents:
Much of the discussion in the case of Game-On's request for special rezoning seems to be focused on the Game-On use of the Vizioli property, the former golf driving range. That is only part of the proposal before the Town Board. Their proposal is to insert a commercial use ( indoor/outdoor recreation center) into a residentially zoned area by special permit. Its impact goes far beyond the Vizioli property.

The amendment to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by David Steinmetz, attorney for Game-On, requires the Town Board to grant a special permit if the applicant meets certain conditions. There is no discretion involved. If the applicant meets all of the conditions spelled out in the code, the permit becomes a right.

The problem is once you allow any commercial entity in a residential zone, there is nothingto stop that use from being expanded OR for it to happen anywhere else in Greenburgh! This is a VERY dangerous precedent to set.

Suppose Game-On receives approval and builds a 107,000 sq.ft. building, then is sold or goes out of business. The community would have a huge empty building with 300 parking spaces and other infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.) in place. Any number of fairly low-traffic-impact businesses might want to locate there, and depending on the financial standing of the Town, such commercial use might be encouraged. Also, there is nothing to stop other commercial uses from seeking entry into OTHER residential districts. If the Town does it once, other commercial uses will seek approval.

Paul Feiner argues that Dobbs Ferry Road is already a recreational and/or commercial corridor - Frank's, East Rumbrook Park, Carlson's Nursery, Elmwood Country Club, Elmwood Day Camp, Fairview Fire House. All of the uses cited (other than Frank's Nursery) -- parks, farms, membership clubs, camps, firehouses -- are allowed in one-family residence districts as permitted uses or by special permit. They are listed as the residential and related uses Zoning Ordinance. Fully enclosed commercial recreational facilities are differentiated and listed as "commercial.”

The focus of our opposition must be on not introducing any kind of commercial use into residentially zoned districts. Once they get a toe in the door, there is no going back!
Some may argue that we already have done this when assisted living facilities were introduced into residential zones. However, "health care facilities” have been Special Permit uses for more than two decades and these are residential uses. The principal change in recent years was to allow them on lots of four acres instead of requiring ten acres.

Creating a new zone is a discretionary act by the Town Board. If the Board chooses not to entertain a requested rezone, there is nothing an applicant can do. In other words, the Town cannot be sued in court.
The proposed change is not only about the Vizioli property. It affects all properties zoned R-30 that are greater than 20 acres on a state road. Thus, the Elmwood Country Club Property across from the Vizioli properly on Dobbs Ferry Road and the Knollwood Country Club property on Knollwood Road would also be able to request special permits if the code amendment is approved. Furthermore, if this code amendment is approved by the Town Board properties that are not 20 acres or are not located on a state road could seek variances from those provisions. Sunningdale Country Club on Underhill Road is a good example, though it is more than 20 acres in size. As an example, Mr. Steinmetz was successful in getting a code change to permit assisted living facilities (Brightview) on properties of four acres or more located within 200 feet of a state road.

I attended and spoke at the April 8, 2015 Town Council meeting. I was present for the entire meeting, which lasted for over 3 hours. During the public comment portion the ONLY people to speak IN FAVOR of Game-On were soccer coaches from Tarrytown!

As President of your Hartsdale Park Civic Association I am urging you to contact Supervisor Feiner and the Town Council Members immediately if you object to Game-On’s request for this “special consideration.”

Game-On is welcome to come to Greenburgh, BUT NOT on Dobbs Ferry Road. There are many other sites, including several in Tarrytown, already zoned for commercial use where this type of facility is more appropriate. We say, “Game-On please GO THERE!”

Here are the Town Officials’ email addresses for your convenience:
Supervisor Paul Feiner - pfeiner@greenburghny.com
Town Council Members: 
Kevin Morgan - kmorgan@greenburghny.com, 
Ken Jones - kjones@greenburghny.com, 
Francis Sheehan - fsheehan@greenburghny.com, 
Diana Juettner - djuettner@greenburghny.com

This is an extremely important matter to all of us. Your support is needed and much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,
Celia P. Novo, President
Hartsdale Park Civic Association

A Letter To The Planning Board

Former Justice and Attorney Herb Rosenberg recently sent a letter to the Planning Board and its members discussing why the Zoning Change proposal, veiled as the "GameOn 365 proposal" on the Visioli's Golf Driving Range property, is wrong for the Town, our residents, unfairly represented, and in our view, seemingly a done-deal. ABG believes it is a done-deal for several reasons. A) Mr Feiner has continually stumped for GameOn 365 amidst a 5-year public outcry against the proposal. B) Mr Feiner has attempted to violate the law to help these outsiders and ignore and disrespect the residents throughout the Town. C) Mr Feiner has adopted and used often his newest catch phrase, which is that people should have, "confidence in the process" (they don't); and finally, we believe Mr Feiner instructed Messrs. Morgan and Jones to tow his line or be "Sonya'd". Councilpersons Juettner and Sheehan are against the proposal for numerous reasons which we'll get into in another article. 

Here is Justice Rosenberg's unedited letter:

6/4/2015 12:14:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Game On/Planning Board

To the Planning Board

My name is Herbert Rosenberg. I am retired lawyer and a former judge. I am a stranger to you all except to Fran McLaughlin, who I have met before and we have had some limited contact. You may recall an Op-Ed article that I wrote that was published in the Scarsdale Inquirer on April 17, with the title A GameOn 365's plans set a dangerous precedent in town of Greenburgh, (the title was written by the editor, not by me, though I agree with it).

I attended last evening's Planning Board meeting because I am interested in the Game On matter. Please don't take this personally, but I was quite astonished and disappointed at what I saw. This long letter will explain why.

Let me put aside the question of whether there should or should not have been a pre-submission conference on the Game On application. What I am saying is that what took place was the wrong discussion. The application is for a zoning change to Code section 285-11 that cuts across all of unincorporated Greenburgh, yet the proposed zoning change was not discussed at all. What is not before you is the approval of the Game On project (which would be a site plan approval) and such an approval can be considered only if and after a zoning change is adopted, yet the Game On project was the only thing that was discussed.
 
This is what happened.

1. Mr. Steinmetz and his colleagues presented an extensive and detailed description of the proposed Game On business. It took more than one hour. As one would have expected, he painted a glowing picture, with much overstatement of what will actually happen there, some attractive photos of the site and films of traffic movements that were quite unreal, and with no mention of the weaknesses and problems that will occur at the site and affect the neighboring communities. He even made an incorrect statement on an important point. One Planning Board member asked whether Game On had considered another location, and Mr. Steinmetz answered that there is no other available site in Greenburgh. That is not true. Landmark at Eastview has made it plain that they would like to have a recreational facility such as a sports facility at its site, and Landmark is in Greenburgh. Mr. Steinmetz spent about fifteen seconds on the subject of the zoning change, making the short statement that if the zoning application is adopted, it will also include the Elmwood Country Club and the Knollwood Country Club.
 
2. Several members of the Planning Board asked some questions about the project, how could it be made better for local kids and seniors, whether another site had been considered, etc. Not a single question was asked about the zoning change and its consequences and effect upon the rest of unincorporated Greenburgh.
 
3. At the end one community resident was given a very short time to speak -- not at all sufficient to discuss the issues involved.

But there is an overriding question, and that has to be addressed and answered before the Game On project can be considered. That overriding question is whether there should be a zoning change that would permit commercial uses on all R-30 residential districts that fit the specifications -- not less than 20 acres, with 400 feet frontage, on a state road. It is the overriding question because the proposed zoning change is not limited to the Dobbs Ferry Road site, but applies to many other areas of unincorporated Greenburgh. And it is the overriding question because the Planning Board has to first conclude that such an unincorporated area-wide zoning change is desirable for the Town before it can consider whether the Game On project is a good one. Indeed, even if the Game On proposed project were not controversial, the question of whether to change a zoning change that applies to all R-30 zones in unincorporated Greenburgh would have to be considered.
 
What surprised me last evening was that no member of the Planning Board asked any question about this zoning change. All the questions were about the Game On project. I commend Mr. Steinmetz for his skill in focusing complete attention on the project to the exclusion of the zoning change issue. His presentation was so well done that to the listeners in the audience it seemed that the Planning Board was unaware of the fact that this hearing involved an unincorporated area-wide zoning change rather than a site plan review of the Game On project. Had Mr. Steinmetz and his colleagues not taken up almost all the available time, and had some members of the group opposing the zoning change been permitted to speak, the zoning change would have been introduced and discussed, to the benefit of the Planning Board.

Mr. Steinmetz asked you for an indication of how the Planning Board was leaning. He said, or indicated, that if the Planning Board is negative, then he and his client would not waste the large sum of money incurred in doing all the environmental and related work. (Similarly, the Town would be spared the significant expenses that are involved in continuing the exploration of this zoning change.) I think that it is fair to say that the comments of the Planning Board members strongly communicated to the listeners that with few tweaks the Game On project will be approved, almost as though there was no zoning issue at all. By the Planning Board not even discussing the proposed zoning change Mr. Steinmetz is entitled to presume that zoning will not be an issue or a deterrent, and so both Mr. Steinmetz and his client will incur heavy costs proceeding with the effort, and so will the Town.

Is that really the message that the Planning Board wants to convey? Have you already concluded that the zoning change will not be an issue and does not need to be discussed? Have you concluded that other R-30 zones will not be subject to the possibility, perhaps likelihood, of commercial uses? That other R-30 districts, and R-40 districts, will not be added to the list of eligible sites for commercial use by variances regarding size and other business uses? Mr. Steinmetz mentioned the Elmwood and Knollwood Country Clubs, but he gave more away -- in a letter to the Town Board dated May 21, 2015, relating to abutter petitions, he raised the possibility that Ato the extent that parcels can be assembled in the R-30 District that satisfy the locational criteria of the draft Zoning Text..."a such assembled parcels would be free to introduce commercial uses under the zoning change." Mr. Steinmetz knows, but he is not telling you, that the possibility of commercial uses being introduced to R-30 one-family districts goes far beyond Elmwood and Knollwood Country Clubs. Real estate developers are not shy or timid.

If you have already concluded that the zoning change will not be an issue that has to be addressed and considered then what you did last evening was alright. I don't think that you have reached that conclusion, but in all fairness you have given that impression. If Game On believes that you have reached that conclusion, as they have good reason to assume, then you have to correct that assumption. You need to do it so that Game On, and also the Town, do not incur the large expenses that are inherent in the application.
 
I suggest that the way to do it is to notify Game On that at the next meeting of the Planning Board you would like them to attend and discuss the zoning issue, and that you permit some comments by persons who are knowledgeable and who oppose the zoning change. I believe that this is the only way now to be fair to all the parties who have an interest, and also to the Town of Greenburgh.
 
I should add that the change of zoning, unlike the Game On project, involves policy and not facts. Hence, if you decide not to change the zoning, you can make that decision without hearings, studies, etc. It is what courts call a question of law, not a question of facts, and thus needs no hearings. It enables you to conclude, if you wish, the matter without having to consider the Game On project -- unless, of course, Game On decides to build its project elsewhere in Greenburgh, as it can if it chooses to do so.

Sincerely,
Herbert Rosenberg

Flooding The Town

The intentional title could be about the flood of emails slowly picking up from a nervous Mr Feiner whose monarchy is being threatened. It could be from the water cascading down the 9A and Bronx River corridors like a spring thaw in upstate NY’s Ausable Chasm. It could be from the soon-to-be-normal campaign blitz to re-elect the current and failed Town administration. Indirectly, its about all of them. ABG was begun and has flourished because of issues facing our Town and caused internally. It is because of this that we felt this post is warranted.

Every election cycle seems to find every politician promising the world and delivering only invoices. There are two candidates embroiled in the race for the Democratic endorsement for Town Supervisor in this election cycle. Those two people are the well-honed, incumbent Paul Feiner and his opponent Robert Bernstein. The similarities and differences offered voters is a starkly wide one based on the issues needed to be discerned. This will only further muddy the decision making choices one must make if they plan to vote in the Democratic primary. On the one hand, Mr Feiner has cultivated the appearance of “problem solver” to the unknowing and uninformed public. Mr Bernstein has pointed out that the “problems”, beyond filling a pot hole or trimming a tree, are usually created by Mr Feiner so he can “solve” them.

Incumbents Diana Juettner and Francis Sheehan, also seeking re-election, continue to try to distance themselves from Mr Feiner’s unscrupulous dealings with GameOn 365. Yet, they can’t stray too far from Mr Feiner’s campaign war chest lest they be forced to pay for their campaign themselves. Mr Feiner has always financially sponsored candidates seeking office with him. Since he must run every two years, its that leash that allows him to easily “pull their strings”. Go against him, as Sonya Brown quickly learned, and be jettisoned with a new puppet on his knee. In this post, we won’t even get into the Fortress Bible Church debacle.

Here’s just a few points that can help distinguish the differences and similarities between the candidates. First, the similarities. Please keep in mind that these are not meant to be disrespectful, insulting or accusatory. Both men are near in age, white, Jewish, lawyers–one practicing, one non-practicing, live in upscale homes, are married with children and have been involved with various social issues in different capacities.

Now a few of the differences.

Mr Feiner illegally paid the Valhalla School District millions of dollars as a payoff for accepting WestHelp’s 108 affordable housing units while offering nothing to other Villages or neighborhoods. Mr Bernstein (with retired Justice Herb Rosenberg) recouped some of that money for the Town residents proving in court that Mr Feiner’s actions were illegal.

Mr Feiner chose to let the WestHelp apartments decay in hopes of tearing them down. Mr Bernstein worked independently as well as in concert with the local NAACP to thwart Mr Feiner’s efforts, halting the ruination of these apartments while the County turned a blind eye. That saga is still unfolding.

Mr Feiner insisted the Town Board do their “due diligence” in choosing a management team to oversee the former WestHelp property. Their choice was a non-experienced, new entrant into the mix, Group MRH, ignoring other qualified applicants simply because he promised a higher monthly fee. After doing his own substantive research and “due diligence”, Mr Bernstein conclusively proved that the Feiner-blessed choice, Group MRH, had misrepresented themselves and essentially lied to gain the contract. Mr Bernstein has repeatedly asked the Town Board to disqualify this firm.

Probably the most important aspect of the entire WestHelp debacle is that Mr Feiner arbitrarily took it upon himself to allow the largest income-producing, non-tax revenue funding and allowed it to expire! The County had “gifted” Greenburgh a most lucrative $1.2M per year lease for the WestHelp facility and Mr Feiner chose to allow it to lapse. Mr Bernstein has often stated that this was one of the largest and most costly blunders of this administration affecting the finances of the Town.

Mr Feiner’s most recent tax that he and his Board imposed was onto existing gas stations on the Central Avenue corridor. Mr Bernstein pleaded with Mr Feiner and the Board not to initiate the fee but they would not heed the advice of Mr Bernstein and proceeded anyway. At the last Town Board meeting several service station owners attended the Town Board meeting and lashed out at the Board and Mr Feiner for hurting their businesses while he catered to Cumberland Farms and a few other stations of choice.

Mr Feiner has focused on non-Town issues, such as turning the Tappan Zee Bridge into a park, similar to NYC’s “High-line Park” created from an old elevated train line. Mr Bernstein may be interested in the Tappan Zee project, but it doesn’t affect the Town. Mr Feiner should be focusing on Town issues, such as lowering taxes, reducing waste, and sitting down with the employees of the Town and working out a contract he let go unratified for 4 years. Mr Bernstein remained focused on Town issues. But since Mr Bernstein is not the Town Supervisor, he can focus on whatever he pleases. Focus seems to be an issue with Mr Feiner. Don’t believe us? Ask him a question and see if you get an answer.

Mr Feiner has a grand plan to overdevelop the Rt 119 and 9A corridors with larger, more “city-like” buildings. Mr Feiner’s Board goes along with everything proffered by job-security-seeking Town Planning Commissioner Thomas Madden. There is currently a move on Central Avenue to build a dance studio that was a little bit of everything: business on the bottom, offices on the top and possibly apartments as well. The push was for a 4 to 6-story building. This would be on one of the corners on Central Avenue near the 7-11 and Hess gas station. Mr Bernstein believes in development within reason and adhering to existing zoning. This project is simply too large for the location. But this is the vision Mr Feiner and Mr Madden have for our Town.

Mr Feiner’s administration has perfected their own “cloaking devices”. One such device is the intentionally curtailed development and lethargic implementation of a Town Comprehensive Plan. A town-wide comprehensive plan would severely restrict Mr Feiner and his Board’s ability to spot-zone properties for developers. While spot zoning is illegal, Mr Feiner has perfected the ability to not be held back by zoning laws. Mr Feiner has had 22 years to appoint members of the Planning and Zoning (among others) Boards, virtually assuring agreement and passage of any plan that comes for review. Mr Bernstein may want to consider removing zoning capabilities from the Town Board.

Finally (for now anyway), Mr Feiner has never worked in the private sector. As such, he has no management experience and terms such as Return On Investment (ROI), evaluation metrics, and performance reviews are abstracts to him. Most unqualified people in a significant position would invariably learn while on the job. Yet reviewing numerous projects throughout the Town, morale of our workers (our greatest asset), flooding throughout, spot-zoning, illegal leases, illegal referendums, over-saturation of group homes, developer-centric decisions, over-sized buildings throughout the unincorporated Town, WestHelp, GameOn 365, out-of-control Board members (“Sit down! Sit the F*** down”) keeping the public from speaking and more has proven this is not the case with Mr Feiner. Mr Bernstein brings management experience to the Town and a level-headed sense of what is in the best interest of the Town. Mr Feiner abandoned this quite some time ago. Mr Bernstein has also suggested he would investigate the benefits of hiring a Town Manager/Administrator as that seems to have worked well for the Villages.

There is clearly a difference between the candidates and we look forward to hearing them at several forums prior to the Primary election.