Public Meetings For Public to Offer Feedback

Below is information regarding the Town’s proposal for the Town’s proposed Comprehensive Plan for how the Town should look for the near and distant future. Mr Feiner, the Town Board and others have taken to spot-zoning throughout the Town at their developer friends’ whims and requests. This Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) will slow that down. However, there are many sections that go way beyond what many of us wish for the Town to look like in the future. We acknowledge that a lot of work went into developing this plan, but it is not the final word – yet! It is imperative that everyone to go to the link below and read the Comp Plan, make notes and bring your feedback to the Committee at one of these meetings. If you cannot attend the meetings, you can email them your concerns. It’s the only way to keep from having changes we don’t want thrust upon us. Without your input, Greenburgh will change into something you may not want! Please participate. Only then can we have A Better Greenburgh.

Greenburgh Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Releases Draft of Plan

The Town of Greenburgh Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (CPSC) released for public comment the Draft Comprehensive Plan for Unincorporated Greenburgh (Draft Plan) on March 21, 2014.  On behalf of the CPSC, I am pleased to announce that Appendix E, which is referenced on Page 12-7 of the Draft Plan, was uploaded earlier today to the Comprehensive Plan Web site (http://greenburghcomprehensiveplan.com/) and is available for public comment along with the rest of the Draft Plan.  (At the homepage, click on the "2014 DRAFT PLAN" tab and then "Appendix E" at that bottom of the Table of Contents.)

To give the public a head-start on reading the thirteen chapters of the Draft Plan, the CPSC decided to release the rest of the Draft Plan in advance of the graphics-intensive Appendix E.  Appendix E contains 92 separate cut sheets of recommended zoning map amendments covering 260 individual parcels in Unincorporated Greenburgh.  The recommended zoning map amendments, most involving aligning zoning district boundaries with property lines, are in conformance with the Draft Plan released earlier.  

We look forward to your comments on the Draft Plan, including the proposed amendments in Appendix E, at one of our upcoming meetings at Town Hall, 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY 10607.  The dates and times of these Draft Plan public comment meetings are:

     Tuesday, April 29th, at 7:30pm

     Saturday, May 10th, at 10:00am

     Thursday, May 22nd, at 7:30pm

     Monday, June 2nd, at 7:30pm

     Monday, June 16th, at 7:30pm (public hearing)

After each meeting the CPSC will meet to consider all comments for potential incorporation into the Draft Plan.  At the conclusion of this public input period, the CPSC will prepare the final CPSC Draft Plan to submit to the Town Board.

If you cannot make it to any of the above meetings and/or prefer to put your comments in writing, please address your written comments to planzone@GreenburghNY.com or mail them to the CPSC, c/o Commissioner Thomas Madden, Greenburgh Town Hall, 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY 10607.

We look forward to your input on the documents, and we also look forward to no more snow this season, especially on any of the above meeting dates!

Francis Sheehan, Councilman, CPSC Chair

   Town of Greenburgh

Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee

Francis Sheehan, Town Councilman and CPSC Chair

Fran McLaughlin, Planning Board Chair and CPSC Vice Chair
Thomas Madden, AICP, Planning Commissioner

Madelon O’Shea, Historic and Landmark Preservation Board Chair

Ella Preiser, Community Representative

Walter Simon, Planning Board Member

Theresa Mae Tori, Conservation Advisory Council Chair

Lou Klein, Commercial Real Estate Liaison

---

Garrett Duquesne, AICP, Deputy Commissioner, Community Development and Conservation

Viola Taliaferrow, Residential Real Estate Liaison

Ethical Challenge Dismissed By Ethical Challenge

A verified citizen’s complaint against Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul J. Feiner (“Feiner”) and Judith Beville, Greenburgh Town Clerk, (“Beville”) alleging violations of the Greenburgh Code of Ethics in connection with their having solicited or accepted services in aid of their political campaigns for reelection from Town Attorney Timothy Lewis was/is in violation of Chapter 570-7(A)  thereof, and against each of them for aiding each other in the violation of such section of the Ethics Code in violation of Chapter 570-13 therein. There’s a mouthful of the party of the first part and the party of the second part and so on. Simply, Greenburgh resident Thomas Bock lodged an Ethics Complaint against Town Attorney Timothy Lewis because of the actions he took for getting signatures for and swearing to their legitimacy as Town Attorney. And, never fearing being found guilty of an ethics violation by an Ethics Board he appointed, the preordained outcome was no surprise.

Listed below are the points highlighted in Mr Bock’s complaint:
1. Complaintant is a citizen of the Town of Greenburgh
2. Feiner is the Town Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, a position he has held for the past 22 years.
3. Beville is the Town Clerk of the Town of Greenburgh, a position she has held since 2008.
4. Chapter 570-7 of the Greenburgh Code of Ethics is entitled, “Prohibited Political Activities” and subsection A thereof is entitled, “Contributions.” Subsection 1 thereof states in pertinent part that “No Public Officer . . . shall directly, or indirectly, solicit or accept any contribution or money or services or thing of value for any political party, campaign committee or any Candidate from any Appointed Officer or Employee. . . .”
5. As Town Supervisor, Feiner is a “Public Officer” within the meaning of Section 570-7(A)(1). As Town Clerk, Beville is likewise a “Public Officer” within the meaning of that same section.
6. Section 570-3(A) of the Code defines “Appointed Officer” as any “person who is appointed as an official of the Town, including a person appointed as a department head or deputy department had of a Town department. . . .”
7. As Town Attorney, Timothy Lewis is an Appointed Officer within the meaning of the Greenburgh Ethics Code.
8. Earlier this year, Feiner and Beville each asked for the endorsement of the Greenburgh Town Democratic Committee to run for reelection to his position as Town Supervisor. However, at its annual convention on May 24, 2013, neither Feiner nor Beville received the party committee’s endorsement.
9. Because neither Feiner or Beville received the party’s endorsement, in order for them to obtain the Democratic Party’s nomination for their respective town positions, Feiner and Beville had to create their own petition, obtain at least 1,000 signatures from Democrats registered to vote in the Town of Greenburgh, file such petition with the Westchester County Board of Elections, and win a majority of Democratic votes cast in the Democratic Primary to be held on September 10, 2013.
10. Obtaining the required number of signatures to get on the ballot requires many hours of work to make sure that the persons whose signatures are obtained are in fact registered to vote as Democrats in the Town and reside therein.
11. The petitioning period this year ran from June 1, 2013 to July 8, 2013.
12. During that period of time, and specifically between June 6, 2013 and July 7, 2013, Town Attorney Timothy Lewis carried petitions for Feiner and Beville, obtaining a total of 58 signatures on five separate sheets. A copies of these signatures, each of each was signed and verified by Lewis, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13. By accepting signatures obtained by Lewis to put them on the ballot for the Democratic Primary, Respondents Feiner and Beville each violated Chapter 570-7(A)(1) of the Greenburgh Ethics Code, which bars public officers of the Town from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting contributions of services for a political campaign from an appointed official of the Town.
14. Chapter 570-13 of the Town’s Code of Ethics is entitled, “Inducement of Violation.” It states in pertinent part that “[n]o Public Officer . . . shall induce any other person to violate, attempt to induce any other person to violate, or aid any other person in violating, any provision of this chapter.
15. The term “Public Officer” is defined in Chapter 570-3 of the Code of Ethics to include “both elected and appointed officers as herein defined.”
16. Town Attorney Timothy Lewis is a Public Officer for purposes of Chapter 570-13 of the Code of Ethics. Respondents Feiner and Beville are also Public Officers for purposes of that section.
17. By obtaining and delivering to Respondents Feiner and Beville signatures to get them on the ballot, in violation of Chapter 570-7(A)(1), which prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of such services or things of value to a political campaign from an appointed official of the Town, Respondent Lewis violated Chapter 570-13 by aiding Feiner and Beville in violating Chapter 570-7(A)(1) of the Code.
18. Similarly, by accepting signatures to get them on the ballot from Respondent Lewis, Respondents Feiner and Beville violated Chapter 570-13 by aiding Lewis in violating Chapter 570-13.

The Ethics Committee, having previously visited with Mr Feiner while they were coming into Town Hall, was followed by Mr Bock. Once in the F. Lee Jackson conference room, they continued discussing whatever they might have been discussing outside, with a sitting member making a few disparaging comments about several religions with a tasteless joke. How ironic. Ethics, anyone? Once they began, they asked the audience members to identify themselves and they did the same. Their regular order of business transpired quickly and they came to the Ethics Complaint. They each had received copies of it and were ready to discuss the complaint.

Having all received a copy of the complaint and read it prior to this meeting, they began by questioning what the definition of “service” is. This was akin to to former President Bill Clinton asking what the definition of “is” is? Being reviewed by a Board that was appointed by Mr Feiner finds us in a quandary of yet another ethical challenge in a Town bereft of ethics. How can we have a ethics board adjudicate the same person who appointed them to their position and then hope to get a fair outcome? We can’t and probably never will.

In fact, Mr Feiner posted on his own blog, back when he probably still thought transparency meant posting the truth, about his lying to the Ethics Board, comprised of some different members:

8/02/2007 3:37 PM

feiner caught lying to town's ethics board said...49

Feiner has been caught lying to the Town's Ethics Board about lawyer Mark Weingarten's involvement in a March 2004 fundraiser that netted Feiner tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from developers with applications pending before the town.

In his October 6, 2004 letter to the Ethics Board, Feiner made no mention of Weingarten when he described the $1000 Feiner picked up that night from Michael D'Allessio, the developer who had an application pending before the town to cut trees in Edgemont.

Feiner wrote as follows: "Mr. D'Alessio attended a fundraiser that William LoSapio of Gregory's Restaurant in White Plains hosted for my campaign account on March 29th."

Bernstein, who first raised the issue of Feiner's ethical problems, wrote to the Ethics Board on October 18, 2004 and said Feiner was playing fast and loose with the truth.

Bernstein wrote: "In fact, Mr. Feiner told The Scarsdale Inquirer that the fundraiser was organized by Mark P. Weingarten, a member of the White Plains law firm of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Tartaglia Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, and that it was Mr. Weingarten, who issued the invitations on behalf of Mr. Feiner’s campaign committee. See The Scarsdale Inquirer, "Residents Question Feiner on Campaign Contributions," September 17, 2004. Mr. Feiner also omits to mention in his letter that Mr. Weingarten was then representing Mr. D’Alessio and that, in addition to Mr. D’Alessio’s $1,000, his law firm contributed another $500."

On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, the Town made public the actual invitation to the event. The invitation, dated March 4, 2004, was on the letterhead of Weingarten's law firm and says as follows:

"On Monday, March 29, 2004 . . . Bill Losapio and I will be hosting a fundraiser for Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner." Weingarten cited Feiner’s “strong support for economic development within the Town of Greenburgh” and said, “I know you have been helpful to Supervisor Feiner in the past. . . A minimum contribution of $250 is recommended. Paul has earned our support in the past. . . .” Contributions were to be mailed to Weingarten’s law firm, to Weingarten attention, care of his secretary.

The invitation was mailed to numerous developers with applications pending before the town.

The invitation proves that Bernstein was right: Feiner was lying to the Ethics Board in October 2004 when he tried to claim someone other than Weingarten was responsible for the fundraiser.

Other documents show that Feiner lied to the Ethics Board about other matters pertaining to that fundraiser as well.

So while Mr Bock and others lodge complaints against Mr Feiner, he has appointed members to the Ethics Board that will be sympathetic to him and his lies. One of the current members on the Zoning Board is William Losapio (above) who held the fund raiser for Mr Feiner. He also voted on the Westhab project as well as other Feiner-centric projects that residents were vehemently against. So, how can residents be assured of getting any real and honest decisions from him when they file with the Board or go against one of the Town leaders? They can’t. Nor can they appeal a rendered decision.

If we look at any of the major projects that have been perpetrated in many of the neighborhhoods throughout our Town seems to be represented by DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Wise and Wiederkehr, LLP. Since this law firm has actively participated in Mr Feiner’s previous campaign, it’s no wonder that Mr Feiner will make a motion to have the Town Board become the Lead Agency and “floor the accelerator” for the process to sail through every required review process. In the event one of the reviewing entities votes against a DelBello, Donnellan, Weingarten, Wise and Wiederkehr, LLP client, the Lead Agency has the power to ignore their recommendation(s) and simply move the project along. For instance, when Westhab petitioned to change the zoning for their subsidized housing project at 22 Tarrytown Road and the Zoning Board voted against the change, Mr Feiner told the Town Board to ignore that recommendation and the Town Board changed the zoning and continually greased the project past every bump in the road.

Ethical behavior needs to begin with the Ethics Board as well as the other Boards in our Town. The Ethics Board’s cavalier and wanton disregard for the real issues lodged against Mr Lewis and the others are easier skirted because the control of these appointed Board is just that: controlled. This needs to change. The decision was laboriously discussed even though the Ethics chair succinctly described the issue and the recognizable ethics violation, poised for a vote. The three other members able to vote, whose position was echoed by the volunteer attorney, providing a service that their explanation deemed not a service, claimed the heart of the matter was a definition of service. They twisted the issue to be about Mr Lewis’ right to participate in community service gathering petitions. One member even went so far as to compare this to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which was in no way what was inferred in the complaint or the explanation given by the complainant. It was a very well-done, Feiner-like deflection.

This issue was a simple one for anyone without an agenda, but changed to nothing more than pleasing their benefactor (Feiner). Mr Lewis acquired signatures for Paul Feiner. It was a service that would be paid for if volunteers were not available. It was also a thing of value and both of these were clearly stated in the Greenburgh Ethics code and the gist of the complaint. Mr Bock explained that Mr Lewis could place a yard sign in his own yard, a bumper sticker on his own car, and get signatures for any other candidates that were not a member of the Town of Greenburgh government. As an attorney he was the witness to the ballot petition signatures, similar to that of a Notary Public which is a service that is normally paid for. While the three members of the Ethics Board voted to dismiss the suit, the issue of an ethical decision being heard and made by this ethics board will certainly impact whether or not others will step forward to lodge a complaint. It’s exactly the outcome that was expected and Mr Feiner as well as Mr Lewis knew the outcome. These members should have a shelf life and be replaced by an independent vote by the public to the position for a limited specific time period. It would help make for A Better Greenburgh.

Ethics Complaint Filed

On August 17, a Code of Ethics Citizen’s Complaint was filed against Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul J. Feiner (“Feiner”) and Judith Beville, Greenburgh Town Clerk, (“Beville”) alleging violations of the Greenburgh Code of Ethics in connection with their having solicited or accepted services in aid of their political campaigns for re-election from Town Attorney Timothy Lewis in violation of Chapter 570-7(A); and against each of them for aiding each other in the violation of such section of the Ethics Code in violation of Chapter 570-13. The allegations of this complaint are supported by the complainant’s sworn statement under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York, being filed herewith with the Greenburgh Town Clerk, that the allegations contained herein are true and correct to the best of the complainant's knowledge, information and belief.

It is readily accepted by residents in the Town that Mr Feiner seems to operate, or “play”, by his own set of rules when it comes to what he wants or wants to do, regardless of ethics or legality. One example that comes to mind is his willingness to change Town zoning codes for a developer’s proposal. Not only is this illegal and known as “spot-zoning”, these changes are usually detrimental to the particular neighborhood affected and the Town overall. A recent case in point would be the Affordable Living Facility zoning change enacted by the Town Board which was written by the attorneys for the Brightview Assisted Living Facility proposal in the Glenville section of the Town. Needless to say, Brightview fared extremely well with the enactment of this change while the small Glenville community will be irrevocably changed.

At the Democratic Nominating Convention, held at Town Hall for free/no charge on May 24th, Mr Feiner lost the endorsement of the Democratic Party for Supervisor in this November’s election to Mr Robert Bernstein in what’s known as a weighted vote of District Leaders. Because there are two candidates vying for the endorsement, it forces a Democratic Primary vote which will be held on September 10th. At that time, registered Democratic voters will cast their votes to choose which candidate becomes the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party. ABG urges all registered democrats to come out and vote.

The ethics complaint filed alleges that Mr Feiner (Supervisor) and Ms Beville (Clerk), as Public Officials, accepted contributions from Town Attorney Tim Lewis, who is an Appointed Town Officer, with his collection of ballot signatures for their respective candidacies. The Code of Ethics specifically states, “Chapter 570-7 of the Greenburgh Code of Ethics is entitled, “Prohibited Political Activities” and subsection A thereof is entitled, “Contributions.” Subsection 1 thereof states (in pertinent part) that “No Public Officer ... shall directly, or indirectly, solicit or accept any contribution or money or services or thing of value for any political party, campaign committee or any Candidate from any Appointed Officer or Employee ....” .”

The issue of “any contribution... or services” is the contention of this complaint. Obtaining signatures from an appointed town official in aid of an elected town official’s campaign for reelection is a violation of the code. Collecting signatures takes time and effort and is a service with value. Elected town officials should know better than to accept such services from their appointees, and appointees should know better than to aid such violations by the elected officials who appoint them. Mr Feiner, a non-practicing attorney recently had his last lawsuit tossed NY Supreme Court on a technicality. It’s no wonder Mr Feiner would easily “dismiss” his ethical responsibility to the Town and its residents in a desperate attempt to remove Mr Bernstein’s candidacy against him. 

In a previous posts on ABG, we discussed Mr Feiner’s dismissed lawsuit in more detail and how Mr Feiner disingenuously claimed he welcomed competition and that this was democracy in action. Apparently, he was not telling the truth as he challenged signatures acquired by the Bernstein campaign and even his Town Board colleague Councilman Francis Sheehan, even challenging an order of nuns who had gotten petition ballot signatures for Mr Bernstein! 

Political candidates have many resources available to them from the Board of Elections. When they are in doubt of a proper procedure or interpretation of a requirement mandated of a candidate, they can easily call the Board of Elections in White Plains or Albany for clarification and explanation. In fact, both the Democrats and Republican hold “Campaign Schools” for candidates to discuss the “rules” to help them navigate the maze of paperwork, deadlines, filings and donation requirements. After 22-years in office, Mr Feiner seems to have forgotten or chosen to ignore most of these requirements. Perhaps his time in office has exhausted him. Or, if he intends to remain in politics, he consider returning to school – Campaign School. The electorate has the ability to let Mr Feiner know they are exhausted too. By voting in the Democratic Primary, they might just help the Town be A Better Greenburgh. 

Paragon of Virtue

ABG posted our first discoveries of The Paul’s illegal sanctioning of Town Hall for a group of democrats making phone calls for Obama, and quite naturally assumed The Paul guilty. Then we read a post by one of the G8 which brought up a good point. Perhaps The Paul didn’t know of this usage as others in Town Hall routinely schedule rooms for meetings by various organizations, not the supervisor? A valid question to say the least. But, just like the kid who cries wolf one too many times, The Paul has had in hands in more dark, Town-wide “done-deals“ than an army proctologist with a new wave of recruits. As a result of his past behavior, we quite naturally placed the blame with him. We still do. Only after constituents and the media exposed the misuse of the Town Hall did the Obama campaign offer to reimburse taxpayers for the theft of public space. 

All one must do to arrange a meeting room for your organization at Town Hall is call the Town Clerks Office. There, Town Clerk Judith Beville, too busy planning the next concert, poetry reading or student film for the next Board meeting, will have one of her able assistants talk to you and book your room. How much vetting takes place during the process is unknown? Is it possible that one of the employees made the decision to provide the Obama Phone Bank the use of Town Hall? Did they clear it with, or was it Belville herself, that made the decision? Either way, it was Belville, who is responsible for all of the actions of that office. It’s immaterial whether she either assumed The Paul would be uninterested or consciously did not bother to tell him. Perhaps she was being intentionally deceptive, following in the footsteps of her boss? It doesn’t matter. The Paul is responsible for the actions of all of his departments.

ABG doesn’t believe The Paul will just let anything go and demand everyone throughout his administration keep him informed of their respective departments actions. If Belville alone made the decision, ABG is pretty sure she still “ran it by” her exalted leader. ABG would like to know if there are any written rules of usage to dictate what qualifies or not for booking or refusing a room? How thorough a vetting process exists for room usage? Would they simply book a room to a hate group if requested? ABG hopes not, but now we’re not so sure. This isn’t like pulling up to the Alexander Hotel and checking in for a couple of hours of fun in the sheets and leaving before anyone is the wiser. This happened every week on Tuesday nights for many weeks in a row! It would be hard to convince ABG that The Paul or Clerk Beville didn’t know who and for what reason this room was being used. This is a serious enough breach of ethics (contradiction of terms in Greenburgh) that The Paul should demand Town Clerk Beville’s immediate resignation!

Next we’ve learned that Douglas Colety, Chairman for the Westchester Republican Party and another paragon of virtue, has requested an investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for the possible illegal use of Greenburgh Town Hall by the Democratic Obama campaign group. Colety issued a press release stating, “Taxpayers have a right to know that public facilities are not being used for partisan political campaigns and no municipal building should ever be converted into campaign headquarters for any party. It is critical that the Attorney General step in to answer important questions, including whether any town employees were used to keep Town Hall open for the evening phonebank and whether any laws were broken in the process.”

It’s kind of funny that the “pot” is asking for the “kettle” to be investigated. Colety has attracted quite a bit of his own scrutiny in the recent past with his paid position as a Commissioner at the Board of Elections, the Chairman for the Westchester Republican Party, the New Rochelle GOP leader and owner of the Executive Star Mailing Services. ESMS is the million dollar printing company Colety owns and operates printing most, if not all of the Republican Party and candidates’ literature and campaign mailings. A printer we know told us he tried to work with Republican candidates but it was “suggested” they utilize Colety’s printing and mailing services or risk the consequences. What consequences you wonder? ABG was told by two candidates (promised anonymity) that Colety, who was joined at the hip with Westchester Independence Party Chairman Dr. Giulio Cavallo, can practically guarantee the Independence line if Colety asks him for it for a candidate. Colety is also known to donate money to the campaigns of those candidates he “likes”. 

By the way, Colety’s “lieutenant” at the Westchester Republican Party is John Cerino, Westchester County Executive Astorino’s “Scheduler”. There’s a terrific “title” for another hundred-thousand dollar payback position. Colety’s Deputy Chairperson for the Westchester Republican Party is Christine Sculty, who also works for Astorino at an annual hundred-thousand-plus dollars. Former Mt. Pleasant Supervisor and now Astorino-appointed Westchester County Attorney Robert Meehan along with his wife are both heavily involved in the Westchester GOP, as well as employed by Westchester County and the Westchester County Board of Elections (under Colety) respectively. Who doesn’t work for them, democrats? Nope, their side has numerous positions doled out by the Democratic Commissioner Reginald Lafayette.   

Regardless of Colety’s conflict of interests and improprieties, he has made a point that ultimately will get a headline for a few days and go nowhere. We agree that The Paul’s administration should be taken to task for this latest abuse of power. We know the Attorney General will leave The Paul alone for familial reasons. We do need someone to go after The Paul, his Stepford Board, the Town Clerk and the rest of his rancid administration to clean up the Town after this latest violation of trust from The Paul. We can only hope.

Referendum Scheduled AFTER Bubble Contract Passes

Thankfully, the Town’s video system was working last night and it wasn’t necessary to go to Town Hall to witness the GameOn 365 “done deal debacle”(DDD) happen at about 9:45 PM. ABG has maintained that the GameOn 365’s recreational “bubble”, a problem-ridden concept from even before day one, was another of The Paul’s done deals. The ethics law for the Town are being “dumbed down”, eliminating a good amount of consequence for unethical behavior by Town employees. Coincidence?

Once the DDD locomotive got up to full steam, the meeting started a half an hour late, as usual. Recently, residents have been forced to endure all kinds of crazy hours for meetings with Town officials. But the conventional media never seem to question this. Why not? ABG’s guess is because as school children the “reporters” had been instructed not to question their elders and this is just a carry-over from that. It’s so sad. It’s part of the faux-learning system indoctrination our youth is being subjugated to. How nice it would be to have a reporter actually challenge The Paul and his Stepford Board.

Regardless, after sitting down and hastily reading the items on the Agenda for this Special Meeting, The Paul made motions and Kevin “The Henchman” Morgan seconded them. While the vote was “unanimous”, once again Councilman Ken Jones was absent. He was also absent previously and the caused a rescheduling of an important vote on this proposal and once again he bailed. Could it be he did not like this DDD proposal and was trying to escape being cornered into a vote he didn’t want to make? We'd like to think so, but also are sure he’s already in the tank for The Paul. Council members Jeuttner and Sheehan sat by quietly, hardly squeaking out their vote in favor of this debacle. “Yes we’ll vote for it, whatever you say, M’lord. Please don’t treat us like Sonya.”

The Paul also moved to have the resolution go to a public referendum, after voting in favor of the contract! We could barely hear a few residents question him as to why they would not have the referendum first and then vote? He claimed in order to hold a referendum, there must be a contract. Don’t be fooled. Even if the referendum mandates not doing this proposal, he will say we already have a contract and it doesn’t matter! Apparently there are two types of referendums. Organizers against the GameOn 365 bubble have been acquiring signatures to force the Town to put this proposal on a referendum. By moving to do this first, The Paul again takes the power away from the people and continues to pull the strings of this game regardless of the referendum’s outcome.

The date for the next vote is August 29th, to put the GameOn 365 proposal on the ballot for a November referendum. While this is still a done deal, the kids from the traditional media are probably clinging to The Pauls every word and believing the referendum will happen, possibly even pass this, and justice will be served. But the referendum is moot. With or without it, the uninvested investors, having no skin in the game and no investment in the Town, will get their piece of contaminated and undervalued property in the center of the most expensive real estate market in Westchester County. The Town will pay for the property’s contaminated soil cleanup and then they will have a market value piece of land for pennies on the dollar. The Paul? He’s getting something, indirectly of course, that will fall through the cracks as well as the newly edited ethics law. The Paul has to go. We can only hope.