Star Trek fans will recognize the
Kobayashi Maru scenario reference instantly. For non-Star Trek fans, the
Kobayashi Maru scenario was an infamous no-win scenario that was part of the
curriculum for command-track cadets at Starfleet Academy in the 23rd century.
It was primarily used to assess a cadet’s discipline, character and command
capabilities when facing an impossible situation, as there is no (legitimate)
strategy that will result in a successful outcome. The protagonist of the show, Starship Enterprise Captain James T. Kirk,
played by actor William Shatner, was the only cadet in Starfleet history to
ever beat the Kobayashi Maru — by reprogramming the simulation so that it was
possible to win. This should sound familiar to Greenburgh residents.
While we never
would expect Mr Feiner to be torn between an ethical or moral dilemma, he has
repeatedly tried to bend, change, alter and scrap the rules. When the Edgemont
section of the Town began openly discussing the possibility of incorporating
into a village to pursue their goal of self destiny and better financial
control, Mr Feiner worked feverishly behind the scenes to thwart their
efforts. And, throughout it all they continued to post their thoughts, findings,
questions, points and counter-points online and express them at many assorted
meetings. At no point did it appear, at least to ABG staffers, that there was
ever anything “going on” or any ulterior motives.
Many of Mr
Feiner’s sycophants, committee appointees and supporters as well as Mr
Feiner himself claimed that the Edgemont Community Council and Robert Bernstein
were behind this move that would cripple the Town's budget and services. While
operational changes could certainly happen to Greenburgh, there were far too
many people stepping up, becoming involved and seeing Mr Feiner’s attacks as
hollow. His public reasoning for not being willing to meet with the
incorporation members was that the group was not an official entity and
could not enter into a binding contract with the Town. We believe the real
reasons are quite different.
By refusing to meet with residents, taxpayers and constituents of the Town regardless of their philosophies, intent or goals, Mr Feiner was already taking a position against incorporation and intentionally alienating some who may have been on the fence about incorporation. His steadfast anti-incorporation position very definitely worked against him. Mr Feiner, who as Supervisor is supposed to remain neutral according to NYS law, continued to rail against incorporation going out of his way to make his anti-incorporation position well-known through other media outlets friendly to him. In fact, emails publicized by many residents and civic associations from Town Hall repeatedly proved this point out time and again.
Once the petitions were finally
accepted at Town Hall, another in a series of calculated missteps by Mr
Feiner's crew, probably under his orders, he waited until the end of the
allotted time period to render his incorporation decision, saying, “No!”
Undeterred, the incorporation members forged ahead. But next would be the
unauthorized expenditure of Town funds to hire a retired judge so he could
shift any ownership of decisions Edgemont incorporators found unfavorable away
from himself saying, “It was the judge’s decision, not mine.” Next were the
subsequent private investigators sent to homes to invalidate the petition
signatures that had been submitted even while NY State law says these
expenditures were illegal. Even though Mr Feiner’s illegal position and actions
were trying to win a no-win scenario, albeit Kobayashi Maru, he forged on –
continuing his alienation of others who may have been amenable to his view but
had now changed sides.
An Article 78 is a form of
objection for the public against a municipality's decision they believe unfair,
unjust or wrong. The Edgemont Incorporation Council (EIC) filed an Article 78
against Mr Feiner once he said no to their incorporation referendum request. On
October 31, 2017, New York Supreme Court Judge Susan Cacace rejected Mr Feiner
and the Town's motion to dismiss the suit. In the Dromore Road case it was also no surprise when Judge
Cathy Siebel referenced the Fortress Bible federal discrimination case, noting Mr Feiner and the Town’s
guilty verdict for federal discrimination, lying
under oath, destroying evidence and more!
With each apparently hapless
misstep, and we know each move was very calculated by Mr Feiner, both
sides seemed to dig their heels in deeper. Now Mr Feiner has a new ploy. He has
offered the Edgemont community the ability to control its own zoning and
planning without incorporation to thwart their movement. The argument from the
EIC has always been about having better control over their own destiny. Mr
Feiner has claimed incorporation will cause the Town budget to have a $17 million
shortfall. While that number is questionable, other residents in the
Unincorporated Town have pressed Mr Feiner and his Board to explain why they
are not doing everything possible to ensure minimal budget disruption? Their
answers are hollow as they follow Mr Feiner’s mantra that incorporation will
fail and there’s no need to plan ahead. This lack of planning, whether over
incorporation, sidewalks, infrastructure, or flooding, etc., is another on the list of hallmark
shortcomings of the 24-year tenure of the Feiner Administration.
Mr Feiner’s latest idea of
allowing only Edgemont to have control over its planning and zoning is not the
only issue at play. ABG believes this latest offering to placate the EIC is
just another desperate and illegal move to segregate Edgemont from the rest of
the Town by Mr Feiner. It smacks of spot-zoning – illegal, yet still practiced with impunity by Mr Feiner and his Board. This move harkens back to his other discriminatory
practices in the Fortress Bible Church discrimination case which we are all paying for to the tune of $6.5 million dollars (of
which $1 million was paid by the insurance company). Instead of trying to work
in good faith with everyone, Mr Feiner has chosen to alienate just about
everyone - the EIC, most of Edgemont, the Unincorporated taxpayers, and the
courts. This must end.
Whether you are for or against the incorporation, this
haphazard method of governance calls to mind of the same old political games that turn
people away from participating with their government. Maybe that’s what Mr
Feiner is hoping for. But, these kinds of shenanigans, back room deals,
subterfuge, lies, discriminatory efforts and Kobayashi Maru scenarios
have no place in our Town and must end. Only then will we see A Better
Greenburgh.
re the ABG mission to travel where no man has been before?
ReplyDeleteClearly I do not read these posts on a timely basis. Perhaps because they, stylistically well-written as they appear, are often fact-challenged and ground zero for the new journalism's leanings toward "fake news” or the daily misstatements and tweets that emerge from the White House. Consider the following gleaned from this post dated October 22:
"An Article 78 is a form of objection for the public against a municipality's decision they believe unfair, unjust or wrong. The Edgemont Incorporation Council (EIC) filed an Article 78 against Mr Feiner once he said no to their incorporation referendum request. On OCTOBER 31, 2017, New York Supreme Court Judge Susan Cacace rejected Mr Feiner and the Town's motion to dismiss the suit."
Crystal ball gazing, typo or just impatience to attack Feiner? Not that Feiner isn't deserving of such commitment -- in most instances he is but not every.
I, of 1960's era vintage, am not so personally offended by "news" that Feiner often does not follow the letter of the law. Laws (often unjust or no longer serving a useful purpose) are meant to be challenged or ignored as my generation did then and subsequent generations continue to do so; we engaged in protest -- often breaking the law when doing so. Even though our participation lacked lacked the authority of ministerial "portfolio" or absent positions of power, protesters knew no bounds. And I don't believe the country suffered for such actions. Today, in Greenburgh, the alleged law-breaking is committed by Feiner, the elected, titular ruler of Greenburgh who elevates cutting corners to fine art status. Sometimes he gets caught, tried, rebuked and taxpayers suffer the financial consequences. And most frequently on these sometimes, Feiner gets away with it and it becomes heralded as more Good News.
But what lies (pun not intended) behind his willingness to push the envelope? Fortress Bible: a costly foible over the goal of gaining a new (the most costly ever) fire truck for the District. In the current Edgemont brouhaha, the desire to retain Edgemont taxes as in-house revenue is certainly a goal that should not be denigrated by those who would be left holding a smaller bag. And no, it is not likely that the Town can forgo $17 million in revenue without severely harming its residents -- there simply was never that much "pork" in the barrel.
cont.
cont. from above
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the position that Edgemont, the village, does not exist and therefore has no place at the Table. Not only is it not yet a legal entity but also those nominating THEMSELVES as speaker(s) for ALL of Edgemont is a no-brainer rightfully answered by Town government with the sounds of silence.
Speaking of silence, how many months have gone by and the EIC is still without a plan for how it would operate as an independent village. Has any other government come forward to acknowledge (say, letter of intent) the EIC's presumed interest in contracting for services (Police, Sanitation...) or have other municipalities independently followed Feiner's example? And, if push could come before shove, then why is the EIC waiting for the judicial answer to the Article 78 re the first petition if the second, the new and improved model, exists gathering dust? Perhaps the Shakespearian model "the play's the thing" takes precedence over the reality of really trying to move incorporation forward.
I maintain little observational patience for Edgemont matters generally since the expiration of their 15 minutes of fame has long lapsed. The self-appointed "leadership" of Edgemont has long insisted that higher tax payments means entitlement and that their issues are more important than those contributing less revenue to the Town. While the EIC seeks to claim the high ground, readers should not be misled by assuming that their position is one uncontested by all Edgemont residents. Yes, Virginia not only is there no Santa Claus but not everyone in Edgemont supports incorporation. Indeed, the EIC arrogance is now challenged by Feiner's clever distraction in revisiting his forgotten once DOA notion of having two Zoning Boards, yet another of Feiner's "off the top of my head" undead problem solutions. A war of words in a milieu playing host to war of the worlds.
Only when the critics and criticized can meet on sacred ground will we truly bear witness to "A Better Greenburgh".
Hal, I agree that not everyone in Edgemont is pro-incorporation, but state law is they are entitled to a vote, which Paul keeps trying to stall. If they get a vote, and don't win, not Paul's problem. But the more stupid things he does, the less likely that is to happen.
ReplyDeleteYes, they pay higher taxes, but what is not fair is that some people (Village residents) pay at a lower RATE, regardless of the value of their home, but get the same vote. Which means unincorporated residents pay tax but get less representation.
I don't think the EIC is "challenged" by Paul's latest proposal, they had looked for a solution like this two years ago.
Edgemont residents are entitled to a vote IF they comply with the requirements of submitting a petition. Knowing that, there are uncontested invalid signatures appearing on the submitted petition -- does this work product represent the best efforts of the EIC?
DeleteTaxes are what they are, wherever the property is located. That is not the centerpiece of this discussion. Unlike most stock-issuing corporations, municipalities do not issue A and B shares, each registered citizen is only entitled to one vote which means that insofar as elections are concerned, how much more you pay in taxes does not gain you more voting power. The EIC leadership is playing "look what they're doing to me now, ma" despite more than adequate representation on the Town's Zoning and Planning Boards. Taxes and representation have nothing to do with each other. If anything, Edgemont residents should be grateful, yes grateful, to Feiner for forestalling re-assessment for decades; a realized benefit for Edgemont owners whose assessments were nowhere near representative of market values.
Finally, if you would hold Feiner accountable to State law, then be aware that the"solution" is illegal as Edgemont civic leaders made clear years ago. And if the EIC leadership is unhappy with how land use policies affect Edgemont and seek their independence to control their destiny, please tell me how the EIC proposes to rectify the wrongs -- how should an Edgemont, the village, Zoning Board (independent of its unknown Mayor or not) decide? I'm convinced that the EIC leadership remains silent because they don't want to antagonize any Edgemont residents ahead of a vote to incorporate. "Where's the meat" or, alternatively, the transparency?