Sustainable Energy ESCO Finally Loses Power

Greenburgh residents received an email from Mr Feiner about one month ago stating that Sustainable Westchester, an Energy Service Company (ESCO) was shutting down – finally! Here's what he said:

Westchester Power will discontinue providing residents with renewable energy at the end of the year

Sustainable Westchester has informed us that the Westchester Power renewable energy program will be discontinued at the end of this year. This decision results from practical implementation challenges associated with recently-adopted State outreach and education mandates. Sustainable Westchester has concluded that these regulatory requirements cannot be met on a schedule consistent with the program’s continued operation.

Starting with this December’s utility bill, customers who take no action will be returned to [Con Edison/NYSEG] as their default supplier of electricity.

As an alternative, customers may select another Energy Services Company (“ESCO”) for electricity supply. 

We originally reported on this apparent scheme being pushed, no, rammed down our throats, without regard to what residents wanted or would actually save. In fact, Mr Feiner knowingly lied about the amounts that could be saved, saying residents could save upwards of "$400 – $600 per month! The reality however was far from that. Most months saw that the Sustainable Power ESCO was not saving residents money. Rather they were higher than ConEd's rates. Once we learned that we had been opted IN to the program, many residents went through the process of opting OUT, then contacted ConEd to put a lock on their accounts so operatives like Mr Feiner and others could not do this to us again.

Here's a few excerpts in blue from an earlier February 2, 2016 article:

He also recounts, “the Town Board unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the Town Supervisor to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") affirming that the Town and Sustainable Westchester, Inc. agree to participate in a Community Choice Aggregation program ("CCA") to procure energy supply from one or more Energy Service Companies ("ESCOs") for the residents of the Town of Greenburgh.” Not only did this not happen, but it was reported in the Rye Record newspaper that they failed to do this, stating, “Failure to observe even the minimum outreach requirements imposed by the commission results in an inadequately informed customer base.”

In Mr Feiner’s email he repeats the same information multiple times, almost trying to convince everyone that this is a good deal. In fact, Ken Stahn of the Ardsley Road Civic Association, met with, studied, and presented his findings to the civic associations’ umbrella organization, the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, the Town Board and others. However, despite Mr Stahn’s pleas to slow down the process to acquire answers before jumping into this, he was summarily thanked and dismissed by the Town leaders. So while residents were sincerely trying to provide validation and correct the misinformation and contradictions, Town Hall was not listening – again! 

Sustainable Westchester has a cool sounding, environmentally friendly name that would evoke a feeling of energy conservation and environmental friendliness, the reality is that this is an experimental program being run by a group of attorneys from a hedge fund group looking to initially do their testing as a non-profit and if they are successful, change to a for-profit venue. With Mr Feiner and other elected leaders blessing this operation without answers to important questions, people may be lulled into a false sense of security. In fact, one of the active participants in this Opt IN scheme was former New Rochelle Mayor, Noam Bramson. He was mayor of New Rochelle until he retired from New Roc and joined Sustainable Power as their Westchester Executive Director. Nice gig if you can get it! Apparently, they decided to terminate this program due to new outreach and education requirements from the State Public Service Commission.

ABG, Ken Stahn and others have all questioned the logic of people having to opt-OUT of this scheme because Mr Feiner and his Town Board want it that way. What we and many others have been saying is that residents and taxpayers should have to opt-IN to this experiment. After all, government should not have the right to decide on what and how you spend your money. Opt-IN, not OUT should be the standard. Many of the community leaders that Mr Feiner has referenced that are participating in this experiment have been appointed to Board of Director positions on the Sustainable Westchester Board of Directors. Does this sound like a conflict of interest to you?

Mr Feiner stated that Sustainable Westchester is “leading the way...” and “Their application to form the first pilot community aggregation program has been granted, and the rest of the state is watching and waiting.” Mr Stahn had expressed reservations about being the first and that we have the ability and luxury of waiting until this model is proven and can supply real numbers instead of projected ones. He also stated that the falling costs of energy around the world is making the entire project even more suspect and asked Mr Feiner and the Board to not rush into anything. A three year minimum commitment is required of all residents. ALL residents, you may ask? Yes, Mr Feiner had signed up all residents in the Town to participate. They must opt-OUT to be excluded. How will you know?

Others continued to monitor and prove that Sustainable Westchester was a flop. The unfortunate result of this is that while Mr Feiner is quick to point at President Trump and the Republicans for rising prices, our own home-grown democrats have forced residents to pay more than they should have by being forced into this scheme! Just remember, the entire Town Board members ALWAYS voted in favor of having Greenburgh residents/taxpayers participate in this fiasco. Not one of them ever questioned the stupidity of this type of program. Thankfully, after ten years it'll finally go away – for now. It needs to stay away and stay out of our resident's way. If they want an ESCO, they can get it on their own. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh!

F.O.I.L.ed Once, Overtaxed Everytime

My property taxes went up again this year, and instead of fleeing (just yet), I decided to fight. To understand how assessments are calculated, I filed a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request this past August. I asked for three things: the raw data used to generate assessments, the modeling methodologies, and whether the modeling is conducted in-house or outsourced. What followed was a months-long bureaucratic obstacle course. First, I was told the request would take up to eight months to fulfill. Then I was informed I would need to pay $376 for 1,500 printed pages. Only after pushing back and citing the law was I permitted to bring in a thumb drive and receive the 1,500 pages electronically. To decipher what I received will require spending an entire weekend (at least) parsing the documents through ChatGPT, then manually verifying every interpretation. Fellow citizens, that’s not transparency. That’s obstruction. And it’s what compelled me to attend a recent Civic Association meeting featuring Greenburgh’s longtime town assessor, Edye McCarthy, as guest speaker. I was hoping for clarity and, instead, found deeper cause for concern.

One would think that a large—curious if not angry—crowd would have been in attendance. Instead, the meeting featured two obsequious moderators, a single town board member (Francis Sheehan), and twelve residents. And yet, what unfolded offered a revealing glimpse into a deeply flawed property tax system that affects thousands of homeowners. The assessor, who has held her role for nearly four decades, gave a well-rehearsed presentation, painting a picture of professionalism and fairness. She detailed her team’s use of the CAMA system—Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal—to determine the value of homes based on dozens of parameters. Their findings, she then explained, are verified externally by (unnamed) third parties. But when the floor opened for questions, it became clear that behind the veneer of precision lies something far foggier.

I asked Ms. McCarthy why the assessed values in Hartsdale continue to rise despite a stagnant housing market. According to broker-reported sales activity, the average sales price in 2025 remained virtually flat compared to 2024 ($946,412 vs. $942,828), while the median price declined. Yet the 2025 Market Trend Map on the assessor’s site shows every neighborhood in “growth mode.” So even though her office implies to have access to current data—albeit questionably sourced or interpreted—her answer to my question was that assessments are based not on current-year sales, but on sales from up to two years prior. In other words, 2025 property taxes are pegged to values from 2023. This introduces an automatic lag into the system that all but guarantees upward drift. When the market softens, residents are still taxed at inflated rates until the lag eventually—if ever—catches up.

Even more revealing was her admission that there simply aren’t enough annual sales to support a valid statistical model in certain parts of town. Hartsdale had just 70 single-family home sales in 2023, 74 in 2024, and 22 so far in 2025 (likely due to incomplete data). Statistically speaking, these are paper-thin samples—nowhere near the scale needed to build robust, predictive models with meaningful p-values or confidence intervals. The assessor conceded this point, adding that in such cases, the science stops, and the “art” begins. This art, as she described it, involves her team stepping in to manually adjust values when the model falls short. Sometimes it’s based on neighborhood buzz—“things I hear,” she said. Other times it reflects broad judgments about desirability. For example, she noted that swimming pools didn’t used to be worth much but now “add a lot of value.” These judgments are not always integrated into the modeling software; they’re done by hand, by a team that now works year-round addressing grievances—because they are running a subjective and error-prone process rather than a neutral, data-driven one. This is how even homes like my parents’—which have not undergone a single renovation in 30 years—still see regular tax increases. If the average is based on lagging data, fragile models, and discretionary tweaks, and if most homes are nudged upward, then nearly everyone ends up paying more.

There are additional inequities that should concern all residents of unincorporated Greenburgh. The town assessor confirmed that a disproportionate share of the Town’s tax-exempt properties—such as religious institutions, public facilities, and other nonprofits—is concentrated in unincorporated Greenburgh. These properties are exempt from paying taxes, yet they still rely on municipal services funded by the rest of us. We are carrying this load—without any compensatory relief. To make matters worse, certain neighborhoods within unincorporated Greenburgh have never received meaningful remediation for chronic flood zones, rendering some homes effectively unsellable. These properties lose market value, yet continue to be taxed as if the flood risk doesn’t exist. And I won’t even get into school taxes—except to say that they increase every year, with no accountability. Thanks to the perennial decisions of the Board of Education, our tax burden continues to climb, even as the chronically under-performing Greenburgh Central School District further drags down property values. In short, we pay more and get less—less equity, less transparency, and less return on our community investment.

There is a larger sociological problem here. The town’s tax system, as it currently functions, is killing the host. Longtime residents are not selling their homes. They are not realizing the supposed gains in value that rising assessments assume. But they are being taxed on those paper gains just the same. Seniors and working families alike are being squeezed by a process that is inconsistent, and largely immune to scrutiny. Official inflation for 2025 is around 3%, but the U.S. dollar has also weakened by 10% against foreign currencies, raising the price of imported goods. Meanwhile, local wages are mostly flat, while housing costs—prices, taxes and mortgage rates—climb.

And all of this is happening under the watch of a single assessor who has been in office for 37 years and a town supervisor who is once again running unopposed. There is no check on this system. No rotation of oversight. Just a bureaucratic machine that lumbers on, adjusting its numbers by ear and squeezing ever more from residents—residents who are left with no choice but to comply or leave. It is time to demand more. Not just transparency, but reform. Not just models, but fairness. Not just polite meetings with twelve attendees—but real civic engagement.

— Tanya Dragic 

ESCO Probably Costing You Money Instead Of Saving It

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

A Message to All:

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

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

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

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

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

Stay safe and well.

Ella Preiser, CGCA Secretary

First Document:

First CCA Contract – How it began – Modest Savings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second CCA Contract – Huge Loses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARE YOU PAYING TOO MUCH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                               

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

Bad Proposal Repackaged

It has now been confirmed that the 32-acre golf driving range owned by the Visioli Family on Dobbs Ferry Road has finally been sold to GameOn 365. You will recall that GameOn 365 was the proponent of installing an 8-story-plus permanent inflatable sports dome at 715 Dobbs Ferry Road, the former Frank’s Nursery location. Community outrage and unity stopped this travesty from happening. Now, because of the relentless work of the Worthington Woodlands Civic Association, the Fulton Park Civic Association, the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations and others, GameOn 365’s inappropriate proposal was squashed, only to see another iteration be born for the adjacent golf driving range. The new plan called for a much larger sports complex which included a 55 foot building, outdoor soccer fields, 90 ft. lights and retail shops. 

Many thought the project had finally been killed when GameOn 365 lost their bid for the Former Frank’s Nursery property and subsequently dropped their plans for the driving range. Obviously, they have not.

We proved in earlier posts that Mr Feiner and GameOn 365 had made backroom deals long before the former Frank’s Nursery property became available. In fact, when those emails were uncovered through the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests, the GameOn 365 representatives were found to have told Mr Feiner that they should not be emailing each other as emails can be FOIL-ed and telephone conversations cannot. Is this type of deceit what we want or expect from our leaders? We certainly don’t want it but sadly have accepted that it is what can be expected from this administration.

As of this date, there is no additional information about the intended use of the property, which,as you may already know, is zoned Residential (R-30) - Single Family Homes. We expect to have Garrett Duquesne, the Commissioner of Community Development and Conservation (a contradiction of terms unless you know what you're doing) to inform us when plans to develop the property are submitted. He had promised the Civic Associations and the public that he would keep everyone informed about this project. 

The entire surrounding neighborhood, as well as other Town residents, signed a petition stating that they were against the project. The reason for the wide-spread opposition to this project: a change to the zoning code which would allow a commercial entity to be built in this residential neighborhood would set a precedent that would effect every residential neighborhood in our Town. It's too bad that Mr Feiner doesn't care about this. Only when Mr Feiner starts to care about all neighborhoods, other than his own, will we finally get A Better Greenburgh. 

Silence Won’t Be Purchased With Appointments

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

Fulton Park Vindicated Over Westhab & Town Violation

In late 2008 and early 2009, the residents of Fulton Park received a letter from Mr Feiner stating that he had agreed to the demolition of the old Kings Inn Motel and construction of a seven-story Westhab facility. At that time, the motel was serving as a transitional halfway-house for ex-cons recently released from prison. The neighbors in Fulton Park had often complain of noise at all hours of the day and night, sex with prostitutes in cars on the side streets, drinking and drug use. Remnants of crack vials, used condoms and alcohol bottles could be found almost daily on residents front lawns or by the curb. Complaints to the police department resulted in a periodic patrol which consisted of a Greenburgh patrol car driving by. Other complaints went to the County Police as the County was in charge of the facility security - or lack thereof. 

Proposals were understandably met with resistance by the neighborhood because the industrial looking building did not fit in at all. Residents met and complained with Town Board members who were blatantly lied to by Mr Feiner and other Board members, who each said no decision had been made yet. This lie was later exposed when County documents were acquired under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). Those documents showed Mr Feiner's involvement with then County Legislator Lois Bronz, County funding as well as other funding that would help pay for the building. Curiously, before the plans were approved, the Town Board adopted a LEEDS certification for all new buildings within the Town. Westhab was not held to that standard, yet Mr Feiner still touts how "green" the building is. 

The residents were never against building something there, but only asked for a building that was not a huge, 7-story, out of character building that would not blend with the neighborhood. Their requests were ignored and Westhab went with their cookie-cutter gulag approach, justifying it as being patterned after area buildings. The only building it comes close to emulating is the old phone company building across the street with its design from circa 1960. An out-of-date design was used for a new building. 

One of the many conditions that was challenged by residents was their incorporation of the existing Town road that ran between the Kings Inn Motel and the Fulton Garden Apartments, named Fulton Avenue. In typical Town Board style, they ignored the two-way road that had been there from at least 1938 and used by everyone in the neighborhood. The Town ignored all maps and findings the Fulton Park Civic Association and other Associations furnished and accepted it as Westhab's. This allowed its use and could be part of the parking space count that was necessary for their project to move forward. When Mr Feiner wants a project to go forward, mere laws will not stand in his way, as was proven here again. 

Fast forward some seven years later with a lawsuit by the owners of the Fulton Garden Apartments against Westhab because Westhab paved over property that Fulton Garden Apartments has had as an easement for over 30 years. Basically, the property where the parking spaces are, which had been argued about repeatedly by the Fulton Park Civic Association, the Fulton Garden Apartments, the Greenburgh Council of Civic Associations and others, was not Mr Feiner's to give away. But when he favors any project, as long as its not in his neighborhood, all bets are off. Well, Fulton Park Civic Association, the Fulton Garden Apartments, the Greenburgh Council of Civic Associations and others are about to be vindicated even though the damage has been done. 

On the June 17th agenda for the Planning Board is an appeal from Westhab to change the one-way roadway back to a two-way road. Here's the agenda item:
Case No. PB 15-13 Westhab/Fulton Gardens, 22 Tarrytown Road, P.O. White Plains, N.Y. – Amended Site Plan
A work session to discuss an amended site plan application for a proposal to allow two-way vehicular traffic from a previously approved one-way driveway at an existing multi-family building known as Westhab. Presently, vehicles are restricted from entering the Westhab property from County Center Road. The proposed site modifications would provide direct access to an existing parking lot used by residents and visitors of the adjacent multi-family complex known as Fulton Gardens. Currently, the only access to this parking area is from Rt. 119 (Tarrytown Road). The Westhab property consists of approximately 30,492 sq. ft. (0.78 acres) and is situated on the west side of Old Kensico Avenue [sic]  approximately 210 feet from the intersection of Tarrytown Road and approximately 0 ft. from the intersection of County Center Road. The Westhab property is located in the M-174 High-Rise Multi-Family Residence District and is designated on the tax map of the Town of Greenburgh as Parcel ID: 7.500-310-2.


This is significant for several reasons. First it vindicates everyone, the Fulton Park Civic Association, the Fulton Garden Apartments, the Greenburgh Council of Civic Associations and others who did their due diligence and sought the truth. Mr Feiner and his Board, untouchable as they run for re-election unopposed, simply ignored what was right and did what he wanted. The Board knows they should go along or they will be "Sonya'd". Second, Mr Feiner gives carte blanche to developers at the expense of all the neighborhood residents throughout the Town and this practice needs to stop. But this is part of his warped scheme to fundamentally change the makeup of the Rt 119 corridor. He knew that the old phone company building would be taken over by Westchester County's Department of Social Services and its proximity would facilitate Westhab residents who need to report in to DSS regularly by being close by. Third, traffic has increased and backs up substantially from the traffic lights, as residents complained it would. Fourth, when Deli Delicious reopens as a fast food service restaurant, traffic will continue to be a nightmare for residents already living with an F-rating from the flawed traffic study. And finally, to avoid going to court and being found guilty of violating the easement that the Fulton Garden Apartments has for the property Mr Feiner "gave away" to Westhab, they have decided to acquiesce and turn the road back to a two-way lane. This is being done by Westhab to avoid going to court and being found guilty!

It's a shame that Mr Feiner's politics have trumped residents on the right side of the law. It's a shame that the residents of the Town remain willfully ignorant and stand by as Greenburgh crumbles. This laissez faire attitude with Town government must end. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

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

Commercial Development Will Impact Our Residential Neighborhood

An Open Letter to the Greenburgh Taxpayers:

Dear Neighbors,

Paul Feiner is moving forward with changing the zoning on Dobbs Ferry Rd from Residential (R-30) to recreation in tandem with group of commercial enterprises under an umbrella organization spearheaded by GameOn 365. This for-profit conglomerate has abandoned the Frank’s Nursery property and will now be erecting multiple buildings on the current Golf Driving Range (32 acres). The Town will allow GameOn 365 to build with various partners, an 8 story bubble, and an outdoor field with an additional structure and more down the line.

This massive development will destroy the character of our neighborhood.

Dobbs Ferry Road is the convergent point from the Sprain Brook Parkway, I-287, the Saw Mill River Parkway, Central Avenue, Rt 119 and other local streets in our area.

We will have increased traffic congestion, noise, concerns for emergency and fire vehicles responding to alarms, etc., concentrated in a limited area. Remember that Dobbs Ferry Road is also used by 3 school districts, private school bus transportation, the Elmwood Day School/Day Camp, the Golf Driving Range, the Elmwood Country Club, Rumbrook Park and the Bee Line Bus Service. Don’t forget the “regular” residents traveling to and from their homes, shopping and doing other things.

Paul Feiner uses the Lake Isle Country Club and the sports bubbles there as the example of why we should have even larger bubbles. Eastchester has a few tennis bubbles on the property of the Lake Isle Country Club, but fails to say they are set way back into the Lake Isle Club, with no homes in close proximity of the bubbles. He claims our neighborhood is in “transition” and we do not have “High-End” homes like Eastchester. Paul Feiner simply doesn’t care what we think, only what his friends from GameOn 365 want.

The Proposal:

Phase 1
The proposed 8-story bubble will be close to Dobbs Ferry Road and to the homes on Westchester View Lane.
The first outdoor field will impact Jean and Jennifer Lanes off of Secor Road.

I am sure they will want outdoor lighting and a sound system to turn this into a stadium-like field for the soccer leagues.

Phase 2
They also have a plan to put in additional commercial enterprises in our residential neighborhood.

Thomas Madden, the Commissioner of Planning, has been working with their planner for months to find ways to put forth their plan.

Mr. Madden gave information to GameOn without the knowledge or consent of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. This is akin to revealing what’s commonly referred to as “insider information.”

The proposed new zone is being called “Recreation Open Space” or an “Overlay Zone” with no height restriction. This is “spot zoning” with fancy names!!

We must stop this now!!

We must attend Town Board meetings to speak out against this plan.

We must submit letters to Paul Feiner, the Town Board and Thomas Madden to voice our outrage.
The Secor Homes Civic Association is in agreement with our opposition to this re-zoning plan.
Contact your neighbors that live in this area to let them know what is happening.

We must reach out to other neighborhoods to let them be aware that this could happen to them.
Paul Feiner does not want other neighborhoods informed because he fears that they will support us in our opposition to his plan to rezone this neighborhood. What happens in one neighborhood can and usually does happen in others.

Again, a good showing from our neighborhood is extremely important at Town Board meetings if you want this zoning change defeated.

Dorrine Livson
President
Worthington-Woodlands Civic Association

Desperate Last Ditch Effort

Desperate people do desperate things. No doubt Mr Feiner is desperate. At the debate held in Hastings-on-Hudson last week between himself and his opponent Robert “Bob” Bernstein, we half expected him to start foaming at the mouth as his lips were quivering while Mr Bernstein recited negative facts and figures about Mr Feiner with confidence. Armed with only a small pad compared to Mr Feiner’s stack of documents, Mr Bernstein simply recited failure after failure within the Feiner Administration in general and Mr Feiner directly.

Prior to the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations' debate and knowing that he would not be attending the scheduled event, Mr Feiner had previously instructed the Town Videographer to play a 30-minute political rebuttal commercial prepared in advance immediately after the Solo Debate! He had been invited several weeks earlier and never responded to their invitation per the written instructions from the President of the CGCA. Judith Beville finally replied the day before the event, saying they would not be attending. He claimed he made the decision at the last possible moment. Really? Then how did he happen to have his video ready for primetime and submitted to run on the Town’s cable access channel if his decision was so late? Obviously, he had no intent on participating in the debate.

The video of the debate was posted on the Town’s website. At a specially requested Town Board meeting, Mr Feiner asked the Board to allow him to put a second video online. Amazingly, the Board voted 4 to 0 to not allow Mr Feiner’s request! He stated that he was allowed to do this because Mr Bernstein had the debate online and election rules allow it. Actually, our understanding of Greenburgh rules only allow posting a debate if the League of Women Voters is moderating a debate. And, you can only post a certain number of videos online if they are for election purposes. Apparently, the Town Board didn’t agree (gasp!) with Mr Feiner. After the Hail Mary stunt he pulled by throwing Town Councilman Francis Sheehan under the proverbial bus when he challenged his ballot petition signatures in court, ABG is guessing Mr Feiner has some real butt-kissing to do to get back in the good graces of Mr Sheehan.

The Solo Debate video that had originally been posted on the Town’s public access channel has now been removed by Mr Feiner and the Town Board so as to not give Mr Bernstein’s campaign any edge against Mr Feiner. This decision to remove the Solo Debate video was authorized by an impromptu and secret vote of the Town Board to aid Mr Feiner’s campaign. Open government? This vote was executed before the second debate took place and seemed as though one decision would help Mr Bernstein and a reciprical one would assist Mr Feiner. ABG doesn’t believe Mr Bernstein should suffer because of another bad decision made in a last ditch effort by Mr Feiner to control the outcome of the primary election. ABG is now questioning the motives and ethical behavior of the entire Town Board regarding this secret vote. There are two debates that our readers can watch on YouTube if they are interested. The first link is to Mr Bernstein’s original “solo” debate and the second one is the two of them in the Hastings-on-Hudson debate.
Bob’s Solo Debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeTu81fhmuE&feature=youtu.be

Bob and Paul Debate in Hastings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjkon6RXmbs

It’s ridiculous for Mr Feiner to think by removing the cable access video of only Mr Bernstein that he can stop people from viewing what he chose to ignore. Mr Feiner insulted the Unincorporated residents by not attending, as well as the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations and the League of Women Voters. This Tuesday, September 10, is the Democratic Primary for registered Democrats only to decide who will be the endorsed Democratic candidate for the November election for Town Supervisor. 22-years of mismanagement, fiscal irresponsibility and questionable decisions is a long time under one rule. It’s time for Greenburgh to get real management skills, financial planning, open government and to have Town Hall returned to the residents. It’s time for developers to wait in line. It’s time for neighborhoods to be heard. It will come as no surprise that ABG is endorsing Robert “Bob” Bernstein and Sherron Brunson Fantauzzi in this race. It’s time for A Better Greenburgh.

Ethically Challenged & Resorting To Lies

During the last forum at Town Hall which was not attended by Mr Feiner, his opponent for the Supervisor position, Mr Robert “Bob” Bernstein, had the spotlight shone on himself and the Town Clerk candidate Sherron Brunson Fantauzzi. The fact that Mr Feiner and Ms Beville chose to not attend  the event was nothing short of disrespectful to the residents of Unincorporated Greenburgh and those in attendance.

Several people have stated that Mr Feiner, speaking on behalf of himself and Ms Beville, did not attend because the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations were campaigning for Mr Bernstein and against him and they are a partisan group. Ironically, the CGCA is run by Madelon O’Shea, who insists that all meetings, functions and discussions remain non-partisan. The League of Women Voters may or may not be partisan but the moderator, Ms Sue Weisfeld was specifically chosen as she has been known to be fair while forcefully maintaining control of a forum and the time constraints necessary.

We’ve always maintained Mr Feiner is shrewd. He proved it again by not attending the forum and then having a one-half an hour commercial run on the cable access channel immediately after the forum ended. It allowed him a relatively captive audience, a half an hour of uninterrupted and unquestioned time to talk about what he wanted to discuss, not what residents might be interested in hearing. It reminded us of the night he went to the NAACP forum about WestHelp and never answered any questions and rambled on about everything but answering the questions that were asked. ABG is relatively sure we’ll see a repeat performance of that behavior again tonight.

Watching the video he produced found him in front of numerous locations discussing topics relating to where he was. One location he illegally entered to film his commercial was the Elmsford Fire Company, a private corporation who did not authorize his film crew to enter or film there, where he professed his love of the villages volunteer firefighters. At the end of that video, he must have realized he offended the paid firefighters in the three Greenburgh Departments and quickly praised them too. ABG understands why he filmed this piece there. The paid firefighter’s union has endorsed his opponent, Mr Bob Bernstein.

He spoke in front of Frank’s nursery (loss to Greenburgh: $3.5M), WestHelp (loss to Greenburgh: $1.2M/yr), the Fortress Bible property (loss to Greenburgh: up to $8M), the Theodore Young Community Center and so on. At each location he staked his claim against Mr Bernstein as being against what he was trying to do at each of these locations. ABG believes Mr Bernstein was on the right side of each of these escapades. Mr Feiner could be found weaving half-truths with out and out lies about Mr Bernstein. We already have documented that Mr Feiner is ethically challenged and in desperation is resorting to lies to make his case for re-election. Residents are smarter than that but Mr Feiner is hoping they will only remember what he has said, not what he has done.

Mr Feiner has been in office for 22 years now. In the beginning, when many residents tired of the Anthony Veteran administration, the voters decided to try something new with Mr Feiner. What we have learned in those 22 years is that the old saying about how “power corrupts” is absolutely true. While Mr Feiner may have been a logical and even good choice 22 years ago, his lack of management skills, lack of private sector knowledge and experience, lack of ever working in the real world has shifted his focus from doing the right thing for residents to favoring developers, contributors and special interest groups.

This September 10th is the date for the Democratic Primary. The outcome will decide who will be the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party in the November election. It’s not about which yard sign was more impressive or readable when speeding down our residential neighborhood streets. It’s not about wondering who will help you as you watch your possessions float away during a misting rain because overdevelopment has no place for the water to go. It’s not about standing in the shadows of a larger than zoned-for building wondering how to watch a sunset in our Town. It’s not about watching our already overdeveloped green space turn black from macadam. It’s not about wondering if traffic will begin to move in time for you to play with your kids before they go to bed. It’s not about watching our seniors move out of their homes of 30 and 40 years into a subsidized studio apartments because taxes became greater than their Social Security checks. No, it’s about the fundamental and sweeping changes our Town has gone through and deciding if enough is enough! It’s time to return Greenburgh back to it’s residents. It’s time for A Better Greenburgh!

Bernstein & Fantauzzi Score Forum “TKO”

Our title for this post is a bit facetious in that there were no real “winners” in last night’s forum. The participants who benefitted were the two candidates and the public who showed up, sans Mr Feiner and Ms Beville. The forum, no longer referred to as a debate because we don’t want anyone to experience failure, was a technical knockout for Mr Bernstein and Ms Fantauzzi as Mr Feiner and Ms Beville chose to boycott the forum and utilize a different strategy. This forum, which began at 7:30PM instead of 7PM to give both candidates time to arrive, was hosted by the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations. The CGCA represents and culls together the leaders of various civic association members and issues throughout the Town and speaks on behalf of residents with issues brought before the Town Board and other agencies. Moderated by the League of Woman Voters’ Susan Weisfeld, the questions asked were only those presented for the one present candidate and not the other. And since Mr Feiner and Ms Beville chose to not participate, the few questions asked were specific to Mr Bernstein and Ms Fantauzzi.

The lack of an opponent for both Ms Fantauzzi and Mr Bernstein appeared to make the moderator Ms Weisfeld appear disoriented. She even stated that she has never experienced this situation in any other forum and was unsure as to how to proceed after the two candidates answered their questions, occasionally adding nervous laughter. Yet, she read off the ground rules that were almost nonsensical given the lack of opposition. Once everything was set up and ground rules laid, the abbreviated evening got underway.

Ms Fantauzzi was the first speaker and gave a 2-minute prepared opening statement, thanking numerous people. She touched on several topics in this statement. One of her big campaign contentions was that the Town Clerk should attend Town Board Work Sessions and Town Board Public Meetings in silence and only speak to clarify information or to answer a direct question addressed to her or her office. The Town Clerks position is to record the information of the meetings. She offered residents real time record-keeping and website posting. She also stated she would bring her managerial experience developed at Chase Bank to add to the professionalism that is lacking in the current Town Clerk’s office. She offered to have a true open door policy and make information accessible to all. 

Ms Fantauzzi seemed to falter several times when presented with random questions from the audience. It was difficult to tell if this was due to inexperience, nervousness or a lack of command of information. She did state that she had so many things she was thinking and was unable to quickly organize and articulate her thoughts. Given that, let’s write it off this time to nerves and hope for a more commanding performance in the next forum. 

Unfortunately, many in the audience were dismayed that a break was taken after the abbreviated time spent with Ms Fantauzzi. Regardless, the forum next returned with Mr Robert “Bob” Bernstein, the second and final speaker for the event. He made an opening statement as well, highlighting the work the CGCA does and how it has remained non-partisan. He promised to bring his own management skills to the Town and if warranted was willing to investigate whether or not the Town should hire a professional Town Administrator, similar to what other Towns have done.

He was asked how and why he got into politics and said it happened 22 years ago; ironically the same time Mr Feiner first took office. Neighbors often complained to him that they could not get answers from the Town or Mr Feiner and he began coming to Town Board meetings on their behalf. He discussed his plans to make the Town more revenue efficient as well as operationally transparent. He offered to develop an attitude of cooperation, civility and efficiency why doing away with back-room deals and secret meetings.

There were numerous questions submitted that were never read and several people were stunned when the moderator ended the evenings event. Many queried why Mr Feiner and Ms Beville were not in attendance. Not only were they given the information in a timely manor, Mr Bernstein spoke about the debate at the last Town Board meeting’s public session. One resident said he saw Mr Feiner campaigning in front of a supermarket just before arriving at the Town Hall forum.

Time was on the side of the residents who attended and while ABG believes more could have been done with questions and answers, we appreciate the time we had with these candidates. The next forum will be held in Hastings-On-Hudson at the Jim Harmon Community Center on Main Street at 8 p.m., September 3. We hope to see Mr Feiner and Ms Beville there as well as you.