Solving A Problem That Doesn’t Exist Benefits One Business

Once again Mr Feiner has pinned a new problem to his publicity-stunt circus cadre of ‘issues’. His claim this time? Installing cell towers in East Irvington will help the people who have complained about poor cell service will now have better service. According to conversations ABG has had with Irvington residents, a) there are no cell reception issues and b) they do not want cell towers installed in their neighborhood. Besides, if we responded to everyone that’s ever had poor cell service, we’d probably give up using cell phones. This move seems to be nothing more than another disregard for resident’s safety and granting Homeland Towers, LLC, access to phone poles for financial gain. This time, however, the contract will be for 55-years! Talk about not understanding the Art of the Deal!

In a post we previously wrote from Monday, December 12, 2011, entitled Increasing Cell Tower Radiation in Town, we discussed how Homeland Towers, a cell tower company, intended to erect two 108 foot cell towers in the Town. The proposed locations were one on Taxter Road and one on Tarrytown Road. We discussed how you could see what one would look like by going southbound on the Hutchinson River Parkway from Westchester Avenue eastbound. At the time, there was another company, looking to put cell towers on existing utility poles.

Then, in another article, from Saturday, July 27, 2013, NextG: Another Guilty Verdict,

we wrote that the courts found in favor of the plaintiff, Crown Castle NG East, Inc., the “new” parent company of NextG Networks of New York, and against the Town. The original petitioner sought to install cell towers on phone poles throughout the Town. Their lawsuit alleged the protracted process began in 2009 with their cell tower installation applications to Mr Feiner and the Town took an unreasonable amount of time to make a decision, based on The FCC’s “Shot Clock” order.

The “Shot Clock” was supposedly an important step enacted by Congress to encourage the expansion of wireless networks throughout the nation. The ruling provides that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for the location of additional antennas to existing infrastructure within 90 days and an application for the construction of new infrastructure within 150 days. And, at the same time it claims to allow local control, but it really does not seem the “locals” actually maintain control.

The taxpaying public is required to once again weigh-in on the cell tower proposals and should insist Mr Feiner and his Board allow the Antenna Review Board and the Zoning Board address the issue of a proposal, which would take the onus off of Mr Feiner and the Board and place it where it belongs. We haven’t heard if Mr Feiner is allowing the Antennae Review Board use of a meeting room in Town Hall again, after he stopped allowing them to meet at Town Hall long before he stopped allowing any Greenburgh groups access to meeting rooms. After almost inciting a riot at Town Hall when he allowed a Hamas group use of Town Hall for an anti-Israel rally, Mr Feiner instructed his Town Board to no longer allow Greenburgh taxpayers the use of their building.

Cell towers in Greenburgh may be the right thing to do if it’s in the correct location. When it’s not, it should not be entertained by this administration and in fact, struck down immediately. We have an Antenna Review Board that can address this and is the proper agency to turn  to for these types of review. We doubt that will happen. Appointing many “Feiner-friendly” residents to these different Boards becomes more and more indicative of Mr Feiner’s policy of stacking the deck to acquire rulings he seeks. It has to stop. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

OIMBY; Off The Hook: Democracy Dead

The Town Board thought they were to have an easy night. The severe cold weather kept even the most stalwart G10 members home, save one. Forget the general public, they rarely seem to care about the suspect actions of this Town Board – unless its about something immediate to them or their neighborhood. They’re what we’ve come to call OIMBY’s: Only In My BackYard. Greenburgh seems inundated with OIMBYs.

Rarely can the public learn of our Town Board and Supervisor’s secret meetings and back-room deals from the lamestream media. In fact, they regurgitate Mr Feiner’s carefully crafted potpourri-like press releases as articles. Political Science majors would do well to study political and electoral misinformation techniques by studying Mr Feiner’s stratagems. Exposure of Mr Feiner’s suspect and often illegal actions by using accuracy and truth is relegated to bloggers such as ours. Coveting certain pieces of information in hopes that that information remains unexposed to the public is part of Mr Feiner’s scheme to routinely deceive the public. Secreting information from the public appears to have happened again and this time its costing us dearly!

During the Town Board’s regular (we know) meeting, only one gentlemen was present to speak during the 3-minute public grace period benevolently granted by our elected officials. Only then does our “concerned” Board allow the public an enormous 180 seconds to speak to them about whatever they wish. If 180 seconds doesn’t do it for you, you can wait until the end of the meeting, or death, for five more minutes to speak. Interestingly, a select group is never encouraged to entertain a dialog with the Board. Only those deemed friendly to their majesties are engaged in a back-and-forth dialog. Such was the case with an engineer/developer named Paul Petetti (sp?). He was able to speak beyond his allotted time constraint and have a dialog with the Board, however brief.

The second speaker was Robert Bernstein, Mr Feiner’s challenger in the Democratic Primary for the Supervisor’s race. He discussed attachments that were not attached to Professional Services Contract that had been discussed earlier by Town Assessor Edie McCarthy. Mr Bernstein asked about the resolution to assist the Town Attorney with reassessment not to exceed $350k. Then he asked about the next paragraph stating a resolution for spending $279k for the same thing. Finally, he asked that when you go to the contract, the supportive information was not there. Why not? How can the Board make an intelligent decision? How can the public understand this with the confusing array of information presented?

The next issue was the $350k the Town spent for litigation against NextG, who sought to install numerous telephone pole-mounted cell antennas throughout the Town and specifically in Edgemont. Mr Bernstein mentioned that the Town did not post the decision on the Town’s website and that “We did!” referring to his Facebook page. Mr Bernstein’s obvious highlight of this was that the Town only posts what they deem good news or news that will not cloud the public’s view of their tarnished and/or incompetent Town leadership. The outside counsel was never provided the February 7, 2012, transcript from the Edgemont Community Council (ECC), via Jim Hallawell (apologies for sp?) that would have assisted the outside counsel with probably winning the lawsuit. Nor did the Town Board provide the ECC position paper. “Why was this significant? Because we understood the law. We got the law correct,” stated Bernstein while at the podium. “Why wasn’t this part of the record?”

The Board, as expected, remained mum. Embarrassment will do that. As the buzzer for the end of Mr Bernstein’s 5-minute period ended, he kept asking who was responsible for not providing the outside counsel with this information. As he continued on, he was finally interrupted by Town Attorney Lewis that his 5-minute time was up. “There’s nobody here... I’m sure you’ll indulge me.” Mr Bernstein continued. He was finally stopped by the Board, probably more interested in retiring for the evening they thought might be a “hands free” night they could have phoned in, except on Dial Democracy.

 Councilman Sheehan stated the $279k was the correct amount. Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, the Town Board shuffled through a few excuses and Mr Feiner couldn’t make a motion to adjourn fast enough. Before it could be seconded (the sound of that locomotive could be heard barreling down the tracks), Mr Bernstein stated that he had just received phone calls from two residents that “Dial Democracy” was not working. You may recall that Dial Democracy was Mr Feiner’s phony attempt to allow residents to call in during a Board meeting.

It’s much easier to only hear from developers who want to build in a Town that lacks true zoning integrity, planning and building controls than residents with real concern about failed policies, underhanded proceedings and incompetence. Mr Bernstein highlighted the incompetence Wednesday night as the only speaker – and they still tried to shut him down. It’s time for Mr Feiner to stop putting obstacles in the way of the Comprehensive Steering Committee and let them introduce their Comprehensive Plan for the Town. While it is part of the answer to this Board’s illegal spot-zoning and developer “winks and nods”, it will not be adopted in time to stop Mr Feiner’s intricately weaved scheme to give away the Frank’s Nursery property at 715 Dobbs Ferry Road to his favored and preferred GameOn 365. This needs to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

NextG: Another Guilty Verdict

Lately, going to court seems to have a foregone conclusion for Mr Feiner and our Town Board. Perhaps the courts have finally gotten wise to his behavior or his “woe is me” is wearing thin. The majority of the electorate has not paid enough attention to his bad behavior – yet. The mother of all decisions against Mr Feiner, is that of the Fortress Bible Church guilty verdict. Ironically, we await the total sum of damages from this suit against him and his criminal partner Town Board member Diana Juettner. They continue to run for office as though nothing is amiss in the now evolving “Bizarro Greenburgh.” His previous Town Board’s cumulative illegal behavior points to those now absent from our local government, having passed away or been bestowed with a promotion. It’s more proof that bad politicians don’t get voted out, they get promoted and rewarded.

This Fortress Bible Church decision has many residents outraged over the Town’s behavior and actions toward this African-American Church from Mount Vernon, and rightfully so! You’ll recall the church purchased property in Greenburgh, literally in then-County Legislator Tom Abinanti’s backyard. Mr Feiner, Ms Juettner and other Greenburgh politicians led the rally against the Fortress Bible Church to keep them from building their new house of worship and coterminous school on their newly purchased property. This seems to be a case of not in Mr Abinanti’s backyard. Apparently, its not acceptable for the average resident to protest a development in their backyards but those same standards don’t apply to politicians. It may be why Assemblyman Tom Abinanti moved – to distance himself from this neighborhood’s failing NIMBY-ism and Mr Feiner and Ms Juettner’s impending guilty verdict?

Subsequently, Mr Feiner and Ms Juettner were found guilty as Town Supervisor and Board for violating the rights of a church to the free exercise of religion and not receiving equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He was also found liable for destroying documents. The federal judge who hasn’t sat in on any Town Board or Work Session meetings and listened to Mr Feiner testify found him to not be a credible witness. Had the judge sat in on a Town Board meeting, or any other meeting with Mr Feiner, he would have already known this.

So, now we learn another decision handed down against Mr Feiner and the Town, that will again be paid for by the taxpayers. This time the courts found in favor of the plaintiff, Crown Castle NG East, Inc., the “new” parent company of NextG Networks of New York, and against the Town. The original petitioner sought to install cell towers on phone poles throughout the Town. Their lawsuit alleged the protracted process began in 2009 with their cell tower installation applications to Mr Feiner and the Town, and took an unreasonable amount of time to receive a decision, based on The FCC’s “Shot Clock” order.

The “Shot Clock” was a supposed important step enacted by Congress to encourage the expansion of wireless networks throughout the nation. The ruling provides that a local jurisdiction must act on an application for the collocation of additional antennas to existing infrastructure within 90 days and an application for the construction of new infrastructure within 150 days. And, at the same time it claims to allow local control, it really does not seem the “locals” actually maintain control. 

The parameters of what the Town needed to do to address the NextG applications from the very beginning seem to have been misplayed by Mr Feiner and to a complicit degree, the Town Board. Based on past performances from Mr Feiner, we’re not surprised. While past performance does not guarantee future results in the financial world, it’s fairly accurate with Mr Feiner’s world and “Bizzaro Greenburgh”.

From the onset, NextG applied to install cell towers consisting of “a small, low-powered antenna, laser and amplifier equipment for the conversion of RF signals to optical signals that is connected to the antenna, fiber optics lines, and associated equipment such as power supplies” on phone poles in November of 2009. The Town insisted that NextG was not a cell provider and consequently did not qualify for approval. But, whether qualified or not, Mr Feiner received communications of application from NextG which he simply chose to ignore and do nothing about.

The decision for the plaintiff (NextG) against the defendant (Town/Feiner) was issued in the beginning of July. Yet, no one from the Town or the public knew anything of it. Why not? Simple. Mr Feiner received the information of the decision and decided not to share it with either his colleagues or the public! Again, why not? Could it be Mr Feiner trying to minimize the negative impact during his re-election campaign? Or, could it be because he has a formidable Democratic Primary opponent with Mr Robert Berstein? Could all the lawsuits coming to fruition at the same time as this election be his motivation to try to keep this secreted from the public? Regardless of his motivation, it’s another in a long list of examples of the phony open government scam Mr Feiner has perpetrated on the public and endorsed by the lame-stream media.

The same taxpaying public that weighed in on the cell tower proposals and insisted Mr Feiner allow the Antenna Review Board and the Zoning Board address the issue of a proposal were also ignored by Mr Feiner and the Board. Mr Bob Bernstein also suggested that the Town allow the laws we have in place be the determinant with the application and that they would provide us with legal validation for cell towers. Issues of public safety, visual appearance, a lack of safety information and specifically a need to fill a gap for coverage all came up in the numerous conversations. Interestingly, the decision handed down and hidden by Mr Feiner in hopes of who-knows-what-?, was made public by Mr Bernstein! Only after Mr Bernstein published a PDF of the decision did Mr Feiner offer it to anyone who sent him an email. 

ABG requested a copy of the verdict from Mr Feiner. In a very deft move by Mr Feiner, he sent a link to his email message as opposed to sending the file as an email attachment, ensuring the inability of accessing his Microsoft Outlook email account and getting the file. When we responded and told him the link didn’t work, he forwarded our email to Town Attorney Lewis where the request has languished for over a week and remains in the veritable Feiner Black Hole, never to be seen again. Open government? Transparency? The public’s right to know? These are empty platitudes bandied about by Mr Feiner and the Board when it’s convenient for a nearby reporter seeking a sound-byte. The reality in Bizarro Greenburgh is something quite different.

In reading the decision by the courts, there was a pattern of consistent delays over three or so years from Mr Feiner and the Town. The chronological actions taken or not taken are detailed below and summarily highlight the lack of a decision for NextG that was the predominant point of their lawsuit.

1. November 13, 2009; Right of way use agreement letter submitted to Town Supervisor. Unanswered.
2. Follow-up letter sent several months later. Unanswered.
3. March 22, 2010; Attempted to meet with Public Works Staff; Unsuccessful.
4. March 25, 2010; Permit Applications sent to Public Works Commissioner; Unanswered
5. March 30, 2010; Met with Town to discuss above mentioned letter.
6. June 7, 2010; Reminded Town of need to meet for negotiation. Unanswered.
7. June 7, 2010; Plaintiff sent a follow-up letter to Town Public Works & Building Commissioners; Unanswered.
8. June 16, 2010; Antenna Review Board (ARB) announces Public Hearing for June 28, 2010.
9. June 29, 2010; ARB rejects Plaintiff application as incomplete. 
10. July 10, 2010; Plaintiff representatives meet with Thomas Madden regarding materials submitted.
11. September 8, 2010; Plaintiff applies to Building Dept., for permits.
12. September 10, 2010; Building Inspector acknowledges receipt of application; Refused.
13. November 10, 2010; Materials submitted determined to not be valid application.
14. October 5, 2010; ARB Chair states Madden doesn’t have authority regarding application.
15. October 19, 2010; Plaintiff requests sample application from ARB. 
16. November 23, 2010; Plaintiff submits second round of applications.
17. December 14, 2010; Plaintiff complains ARB took no action of their applications.
18. February 8, 2011; Plaintiff sends letter asserting Town’s Antenna Law doesn’t apply to their application.
19. March 15, 2011; Plaintiff submits application “template” to facilitate approval process. ARB issues letter of incompleteness without specifically addressing deficiencies. Months of back and forth take place with no resolve.
20. April 4, 2011; ARB identifies deficiencies in template application.
21. May 17, 2011; 7 applications discussed at ARB public meeting. Determined deficient.
22. June 27, 2011; 2nd set of revisions discussed at public ARB meeting.
23. October 26, 2011; 16 of 20 Plaintiff applications deemed complete by ARB. 
24. November 1, 2011; Letter stating same from ARB Chair to Building Department sent.
25. November 15, 2011; Final 4 applications submitted to ARB.
26. November 15, 2011; Plaintiff submits completed versions of applications to Town Board. 
27. November 25, 2011; Letter stating same from ARB Chair to Building Department sent.
28. November 30, 2011: Town Board holds Public Hearing. No vote taken. Adjourned until December 14, 2011. 
29. December 3, 2011; Receipt of letter confirmed from ARB to Building Inspector.
30. December 14, 2011; 2nd Public Hearing held. Town-hired engineering firm submits Engineering Report concluding gap in service. No vote by Town Board taken.
31. January 17, 2012; Town Board discusses Plaintiff request for a special permit in Work Session. Plaintiff agrees to adjourn from the January 25, 2012 meeting until February 7, 2012.
32. February 7, 2012; 3rd Public Hearing held. Plaintiff attends Work Session. No vote on Plaintiff’s request/application.
33. February 23, 2012; New questions arise as to alternate locations for installation.
34. February 29, 2012; Town Board holds Public Hearing. Indicates they would vote on March 20, 2012.
35. March 20, 2012; Town Board decides to hold over the vote for a date to be determined. Town Attorney Tim Lewis tells Plaintiff he expects a decision at the April 11, 2012 meeting.
36. March 30, 2012; Final Public Hearing held. No vote taken.
37. April 10, 2012; Crown Castle acquires NextG.
38. April 11, 2012; NextG applications not on the Town Board agenda. Town Board decides to turn the request over to the Town’s Conservation Advisory Council (CAC). 
39. April 11, 2012; Plaintiff not invited to CAC meeting.
40. June 7, 2012; Plaintiff threatens lawsuit if no meaningful action was taken with their application.
41. June 20, 2012; Town requests additional information from Plaintiff, promising decision in 30 days proving NextG offers telecommunications service, the installations meet the minimum height and aesthetic intrusion requirements.
42. July 24, 2012; Town denies Plaintiff’s applications stating no service gap was demonstrated or that NextG offered telecommunications service, the installations meet the minimum height and aesthetic intrusion requirements.

Motions to dismiss by the Town (defendant) and motions for summary judgement by the NextG/Crown Castle (plaintiff) were subsequently made. The courts ruled for both parties on partial points of the suit. In the end, however, the victor seems to be NextG/Crown Castle. The decision affecting the residents beyond the financial aspects of the suit mean that primarily Edgemont and Scarsdale will soon be seeing these cell towers on 20 or so phone poles throughout their communities. 

An interesting subtext throughout this entire episode is one that continues to be present but seemingly never referenced. About two years or so ago when Ms Sonya Brown was still a sitting Town Board member, the Town Board discussed cell coverage throughout the Town ad nauseum. In fact, after the poor cell coverage issue was highlighted in one particular meeting, each Board member seemed to try to top the other with their own tales of woe as to the spotty cell coverage users might experience throughout the Town. Mr Feiner even said there are times he is driving on the Knollwood Road area of the Town and unable to get a cell phone signal. Perhaps driving should have been more his focus and not phone use. Beyond that, it would have certainly assisted making the case for NextG/Crown Castle. Opportunity lost? Maybe, but the outcome was the same.

ABG is not in favor of the cell tower installations as originally proposed by NextG. There was a proper vehicle in place to handle their application, but Mr Feiner and his Board knew better. While the outcome might have been different had the Town simply let their laws protect us, Mr Feiner again dictates what he wanted and failed. It seems that Mr Feiner attempted to stall* the applicant the same way so many small developers and residents typically encounter from the Town with their smaller projects. Only residents don’t have a Shot Clock law on their side, only against them. Big brother? You decide.

Had NextG mentioned several buzz-words in the application, things would have certainly progressed more quickly for them. Future applicants should consider incorporating some of these buzz-words to ensure Mr Feiner’s help and even promotion: homeless, affordable housing, workforce, developmentally disabled, tax generating, for the children, revenue to the Town, more votes, transparent, Fairview, create jobs, Section 8 and so on. The list is endless. Apparently, so are the lawsuits and guilty verdicts!

* From the decision’s document. Bold text is made by ABG. “The Town Board held public hearings on the applications on November 30, 2011, December 14, 2011, February 7, 2012, February 29, 2012, and March 20, 2012, and did not issue its written decision denying Plaintiff’s applications until July 24, 2012 – 252 days from the submission of the complete applications. This is well beyond presumptively-reasonable 150-day time period set by the Shot Clock Order, and does not even include time spent during the completeness review, at least some of which should arguably count towards the application processing time given that the Shot Clock Order only excludes time that it takes the applicant to respond to requests for additional information. See Shot Clock Order, 24 F.C.C. Rcd. at 14015. The Town has proffered no real explanation as to why its process took so long that would suffice to rebut the presumption. Indeed, from the close of the public hearings, it took over four months for the Town to render its decision, after conducting public hearings on the matter for close to four months. Further, putting the presumption aside, the bureaucratic hoops through which Plaintiff was put, along with the rest of the record, suggest that the Town would be no more interested in a prompt disposition now than it was beginning in 2009. This is a paradigmatic case where remand would only further and unnecessarily delay the processing of Plaintiff’s siting application. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy in equity is an order requiring the issuance of the special permits sought.”