WestHelp Agreements Violated Again

At  the last Town Board meeting they proved once again that it lacks integrity, transparency and honesty with their skewed methods of governance. This latest move belies Mr Feiner’s often used canned phrases of ‘due diligence’, ‘transparency’, ‘faith in the process’ and others. This time the Town Board held a special meeting, a covert meeting if you will, to change the tenets of the previously agreed upon use of the WestHelp facility on the Westchester Community College campus and negate the agreement that had been developed for the property. Originally created and used as an affordable housing facility for mothers with under school-age children, you may recall Mr Feiner chose to leave the vacant facility open after the County ceased using the facility for homeless families. Its original intent and design had been as an affordable housing facility.

With a seemingly veiled public disclosure at the ending of last Wednesday nights Town Board meeting and without any public session, or any public discourse, Mr Feiner and his Board skirted their elected obligation entitled to by the public regarding the WestHelp property. It highlights Mr Feiner’s contempt and low regard for the Greenburgh taxpayer. He and his Board members voted in a hastily contrived “special meeting” to change the determined use for the now degraded WestHelp facility. You may recall, after the lease with the County expired due to Mr Feiner’s twice refused contract acceptance, the facility was vacated by the County’s Department of Social Services (DSS). Mr Feiner took it upon himself, condoned by his Board, to not only leave the facilities unsecured, but to accelerate its degradation so it would need to be torn down, appeasing the residents of Valhalla who were mostly against the site in the first place. The reason? Votes.

The site was the brainchild of the HUD Chair Andrew Cuomo, who was appointed by then President Bill Clinton after Cuomo’s political aspirations were halted when he insulted New Yorkers with several negative comments when he was running for governor. Knowing what short memories voters have, he was whisked away to Washington to wait out the furor. Once his past history was forgotten, he began his anointment to the Albany throne. As governor, he disagreed with Mr Feiner’s newest proposal for the WestHelp site to sell the property to the Ferncliff School for the disabled. County Executive Astorino, as well as other County Legislators, disagreed as well but chose inaction over The Town’s violation of the in-place and still active contract. ABG conversed with County Legislator Alfreda Williams, who said the County Board would need to address any contractual violations and decide how to proceed. Nothing was done.

So, after languishing for four years at the mandate by Mr Feiner, the County finally agreed to let the Town submit a proposal for the site or lose this gift-horse property completely. The facility had generated $1.2 million dollars a year in revenue to the Town. Had the Town continued to receive those funds, we would have had $4.8 million that could have been used toward paying down the $6.5 million guilty verdict fine levied against Mr Feiner after being found guilty by a Federal Court for discrimination, destroying evidence, not being a credible witness and more. In the meantime, Mr Feiner keeps insisting the Town remained within the 2% NYS Tax Cap while raising our taxes 3.4%. More political posturing aided by Cuomo’s 2% Tax Cap hype.

After the NYS Division of Human Rights granted the Town permission to impose age restrictions toward the property’s usage, it was decided to create a Senior Living Facility on the WestHelp site in accordance with the terms of the original lease with the County. They would reconfigure the 108 efficiency apartments into 74 apartments to be rented out to senior citizens. The facility would then be managed by a previously denied management company, Peekskill’s Marathon Development Group. Mr Feiner originally tried to award the contract to a developer with no background or experience in property management. In fact, the deal  that Mr Feiner originally refused to award to Marathon is the same deal as before with two major and costly changes. First, the deal will only bring in $127,000 per year, down from the original proposal Mr Feiner killed. Second, the Town, in particular the Unincorporated Taxpayer, will wind up paying for the remediation to the site! This was another decision made behind closed doors, possibly in an elusive Executive Session and never a posed to other bidders. Faith in the system? Transparency? Due diligence? Hardly.

Messrs. Morgan and Jones “brokered” the same deal that was laid out initially and are now bragging of this “new” deal as though they are master negotiators. They’re not. Because of Mr Feiner and his Board’s actions, the Town not only lost the $1.2 million a year in revenue, they knowingly and arbitrarily decided to cost the Town even more by dragging out this process and agreeing to what had already been proposed, less the four year reduction of income for the Town, income for Marathon and most importantly income that would have helped the resident taxpayers. Now, however, the taxpayers will be “on the hook” for the remediation costs, no matter what they amount to. Additionally, Marathon will wind up managing 54 apartments instead of the originally agreed upon 74 and the seniors that might have been afforded homes will still be left wanting.

If Mr Feiner and his Board were truly interested in providing affordable housing and not just posturing about it, they could have assigned the 108 apartments to some of the 250 families on the Greenburgh Housing Authority’s waiting list once the County ceased their operation of WestHelp.That would have amounted to about half of their waiting list of Town residents being helped. This would have alleviated the blight of Greenburgh residents and probably others seeking a home. There was no stipulation in the original contract about who the Town could place in the apartments once the Town took it over. But since this administration is not sincere about addressing the problem, those people continue to wait - over four years later.

Another connivance by Mr Feiner means more delays and another possible rejection for the use of the WestHelp property from the County. We’re pretty sure that Mr Feiner did not make the switch from senior to affordable housing to help County Executive Astorino in the County’s fulfillment of the federally mandated housing agreement in Westchester. Although, given Mr Feiner’s history of guilty verdicts in court, we have to wonder if he has had any experience with those judges and cut a deal? Regardless, after rejecting proposals from bona fide housing management companies, turning down a cash sale with all remediation costs included, trying to change the use from housing to a school, being found guilty in paying funds to the Valhalla School District, after accusing residents of undermining his (illegal) deals, it will be no small task to see anybody living at the WestHelp facility. That is, unless they are in tents. This must end. It’s the only way we’ll get A Better Greenburgh.

Feiner Pushes New Tax While Professing Tax Cap Compliance

The Rolling Stones' song, You Can't Always Get What You Want, sometimes rings true, except in Greenburgh. Mr Feiner has stacked most of the decks to his benefit for his own agenda. If a taxpaying resident doesn't like a zoning requirement that was created back when our leaders favored a real vision for our Town, they could move and find another place to live. If people found this planning attractive and wanted to be a part of it, they could move to Greenburgh. But nowadays, Mr Feiner and a quid pro quo handshake with developers, can and invariably does, allow it to be changed, regardless of community input. Concurrently, whatever the Planning Review and Zoning Review Boards say is only a recommendation to the Town Board and easily ignored or dismissed by at least three of the five on the Town Board providing Mr Feiner the changes he seeks. It's purely a stacked deck against the resident taxpayers. Now he's going beyond the residents.

Touting the NYS 2% Tax Cap, Mr Feiner has jumped on the "taxing bandwagon" with all of his cronies. He professes to be operating under the NYS 2% Tax Cap through semantics and a willfully ignorant electorate, but he does not actually stick to it. Our State, and in particular our County, has the highest taxes in the nation. And, Mr Feiner just asked his Albany best-buds, Legislators Stewart-Cousins and Abinanti to pass a 3% tax levy that the Town could apply to hotel rooms. What this means is the Town will get a small fee per room, a yearly "windfall" by applying this tax to visitors to Westchester and in particular the Town of Greenburgh.

What Mr Feiner and many politicians like him refuse to acknowledge is that each time another tax is added to a hotel bill, some corporate accountant sits with a calculator analyzing their traveling colleague's expense report and questioning if they really need to go there to begin with, or stay overnight. Eventually, businesses will begin to change their travel habits and affect Mr Feiner's newest cash cow. Since past performance is an indicator of future results, we know Mr Feiner will invariably have another Fortress Bible-like decision waiting against him in the wings. Here's a suggestion for Mr Feiner: stop breaking the law and you won't need your buds to create more taxes!
 
The New York State Legislature approved a law that authorizes the Town of Greenburgh to generate additional needed revenue by having a 3% hotel tax. This tax could generate from non-resident visitors to the Town significant revenue--probably somewhere between $200,000-$500,000 a year. There are almost 2000 hotel rooms in town. According to Mr Feiner, "The dollars received will be used to REDUCE your property tax bills and to comply with the tax cap." Really? Each time he says this he fails to produce either hard numbers or cold facts - and we never see a savings. He speaks in generalities, platitudes and what we like to call a circular conversation. You've seen him do it often. You ask a question and he has some colloquial story or personal experience and steers the conversation away from what the original topic was. Of course, there's always the, "This is just my personal opinion..." Sorry Mr Feiner, your position as Supervisor is like that of a police officer. You are always the Supervisor, just like a cop is always a cop and never really "off-duty", and saying something is your personal opinion doesn't hold water. Now, if you want to step down as Supervisor to have a personal opinion, we'd be happy to give you an open forum...
 
The Town has been seeking permission to impose a hotel tax since at least 2009. The New York State Legislature had previously authorized New Rochelle, White Plains, Rye and 43 counties in NYS to have the tax--but not Greenburgh. 46.5% of the counties that had previously been granted permission to have a hotel tax by the state have smaller populations than the Town of Greenburgh. Mr Feiner argued that NYS was not treating Greenburgh fairly. Now he knows how the residents feel.
 
The villages of Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry, Elmsford, Hastings, Irvington and Tarrytown as well as villages within the Town of Mount Pleasant were also granted permission to adopt a hotel tax this week by the legislature. But most of these communities with hotels are generally used in part or total for DSS (welfare) recipients. They had formally been known as Welfare motels. So we pay top dollar for these people to live in small rooms with no conveniences beyond a bathroom. We're sure not everybody in these hotels are DSS recipients, but the fact remains that not only did Mr Feiner push for this tax increase, but we a) will not see our taxes go down, and b) in the end only increased the taxes on ourselves. We need politicians that have our best interest at heart, not theirs and the re-election campaigns. It's time for term limits in Greenburgh. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.

Just Say "No" to More Games From Albany

Tomorrow, on Election Day, registered voters will have an opportunity to change New York state's Constitution, and another to approve or deny $2 billion in borrowing. They just have to remember to flip their ballots first. The first time flipping the ballots in our 1930's style voting "improvement" was an issue was over Mr Feiner's referendum for approving the illegal Game On 365 lease. He was so disturbed to learn people weren't voting for it that he sent out an email blast and had numerous media outlets post a letter on their websites reminding voters of the need to look on the back of their Kandahar style ballots.

It's expected that about 4 million people will vote in New York tomorrow, but far fewer will actually weigh in on three proposals that will appear on the back of every ballot statewide. Many, unaware of the issues will simply unknowingly vote for the propositions without understanding their ramifications. In 2013 — a low-turnout year with no statewide races — a total of 3.3 million people cast a ballot in New York. Of those, about 2.8 million voted on the first ballot proposal that year, a high-profile amendment to allow up to seven private casinos. Now we see casinos everywhere either struggling to stay open or closing, proving that casinos are not the panacea our current crop of politicians had hoped for.

This year, voters will be asked to decide three issues, though none rise to the profile of the casino amendment last year. But their impact remains as the proposals will decide how the state draws its legislative districts and whether it will borrow to fund technology upgrades in schools.

Proposition 1
The first proposal traces its roots to 2012, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the Legislature struck a deal on a set of congressional and state legislative district lines for the next decade. Cuomo approved the district lines that year despite protests from some minority-party lawmakers and good-government groups who alleged they were drawn by the Senate's Republican and Assembly's Democratic leaders in a way that strengthened their hold on power.

If approved in this election, a new commission would be created to re-draw the lines every 10 years based on updated census figures. In and of itself, by law, this is going to happen anyway. Here's the rub: the panel would have 10 members: Two each appointed by the Senate's majority and minority leaders, two each from the Assembly's majority and minority leaders, and the remaining two picked by the other eight appointees. This has political nepotism and cronyism written all over it and promises to further ensure redistricting that benefits the incumbent, not the voter..

This panel would be required to hold public hearings across the state before drawing districts that would be subject to approval from the Legislature. If the Legislature twice rejects the proposed lines, legislative leaders would be permitted to alter the proposed districts and vote again. Here again is the rub: After the paper hearings are held, the legislative leaders will redraw the district lines themselves and the public, known for their waning interest and distrust in politicians will simply acquiesce or throw up their hands in frustration, walk awy and the politicos will get what they set out to do.

Passing Proposition 1 does not ensure any reform or an improved process that will benefit voters. ABG recommends voting 'no' for Proposition 1.

Proposition 2
The second ballot proposal deals with the amount of paper used each year by the Legislature to print bills and place them on lawmakers' desks. Under the current New York state Constitution, a bill can't become a law unless it has been printed and placed on all 213 lawmakers' desks at least three days before it's put to a vote. With state budget bills totaling thousands of pages and thousands of bills introduced each year, the amount of paper used piles up quickly. Proposal 2 would alter the constitution to allow the bill to be deemed "printed" if it's provided to lawmakers electronically.

Assemblyman James Tedisco, R-Glenville, Schenectady County, pushed legislators to support the amendment saying, "You're going to save forest land.. You're going to save money." While there has been little opposition because every legislator knows its good to "play green", we agree with Assemblywoman Shelley Mayer, D-Yonkers, who said she was wary of making it easier for lawmakers to vote on bills without reading them. Still, there's been little opposition to the amendment, which was sponsored in the Legislature by Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining. While lawmakers would still be able to print the bills, if they so desired a hard copy, the printing industry has proven with facts and figures that more trees are planted to replace those used in the paper-producing process than are cut down. So, while not printing bills might work, the better amendment might be to have the legislators voluntarily opt to use electronic copies with a trial period and monitor whether electronic versions work out; plus have an increased time to review them instead of three days. Since that is not the change on the ballot, ABG recommends voting 'no' for Proposition 2.

Proposition 3
The third proposal would authorize a $2 billion bond act that would fund technology upgrades in schools and refurbishing or acquiring space for prekindergarten programs. If approved, the state would borrow the money and make it available to school districts who submit a plan to implement the money to buy equipment upgrades, improve broadband Internet access or make other technological improvements, including to school security equipment. Purchasing or refurbishing facilities to house expanding prekindergarten programs or replace trailer classrooms — said to be found in New York City — are also approved costs.

Here's the rub: This is another way for legislators to ensure backing from the teachers unions across the state! Do pre-kindergarten kids really need internet access? Probably not. What this does do is remove the control from the parents and local school districts to decide what they do and don't want to fund for their kids' schools. This becomes another unfunded mandate that will simply grow and grow. Using bonds to specify and limit high-tech purchases for equipment that will be obsolete before the equipment arrives is not smart. The New York State United Teachers Union, has spent $200,000 on television ads urging a "yes" vote. The state School Boards Association, however, has remained neutral on the issue. There's a good reason for this. It's a bad idea. Although, we're sure our favorites saying can't be far behind the urging for approval, It's for the children." This is another New York State boondoggle whose time has not come and will cost us all more and more money via increased taxes. ABG recommends voting 'no' for Proposition 3.

ABG often speaks of the willfully ignorant voter in Greenburgh. This isn't about being a Democrat or Republican. Rather, this is about being a smart, informed New Yorker. Just say, "No!" and send another message to Albany. Then we might see A Better Greenburgh.

Quid Pro Quo: A Learned Skill

Which politician made this statement:

“This legislation will eliminate big money from campaigns and make local residents the sole concern of local candidates for offices. It will make it clear to local residents that their participation really matters.”

One would naturally believe it’s our Town Supervisor as this is Greenburgh, where Mr Feiner knows what to say to the press but does not have the ability to practice what he preaches. No, this statement is from another politician who actually got his start in Greenburgh, moved up the food chain as a County Legislator and is now the sitting Democratic NYS Assemblyman. That’s right, this statement is from Tom Abinanti, regarding campaign financing for political candidates.

Why is this important? Because Mr Abinanti just imposed another NY State unfunded mandate upon us via our school taxes. Second, because on October 30, 2014, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law two bills that New York State Assemblyman Tom Abinanti (D-Greenburgh/Mt. Pleasant) sponsored/co-sponsored. The first bill is the one we are taking issue with. It's not because of what is accomplished with this unfunded mandate of helping students in need of this medical treatment. Rather, because it reeks of Quid Pro Quo in a Town that sees approvals passed for fire truck donations and lawsuits when the approvals are denied because a donation is refused.

The first bill (A.7791) authorizes schools to stock and administer EpiPens to any student in an emergency even if the student doesn’t have a prescription. Assemblyman Abinanti drafted, sponsored and pursued this legislation in response to increasing reports of deaths in schools due to anaphylactic reactions. 

As we were looking into the financial records of Mr Abinanti during this election, we were stunned to find that he may be receiving payments in the form of campaign contributions from the drug company Pfizer to introduce legislation that could financially benefit their company. Knowing the inculcation of how things get done in Greenburgh, we thought we would take a look and see what else we could find.

We took a look at the Pfizer website and found that not only do they donate a lot of money to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, they even have a political PAC set up to do so. They claim it is set up so their employees can help their local politicians. We did a search of 2014 and lo and behold, there is Mr Abinanti’s name with a $1000 donation from the Pfizer drug company (see picture below). 

 

Before we made a judgement, we went to the Campaign Financial Disclosure of the New York State Board of Elections Contribution web page and sought Mr Abinanti’s donation information. Not surprisingly, it listed the donations from Pfizer along with other businesses, PAC’s and individuals (see picture below).

Further investigation to previous election filings showed many of the same supporters routinely coughing up donation money to Mr Abinanti. But not the drug company Pfizer. Here’s the rub: Pfizer pays Mr Abinanti $1,000 through his campaign finance account in two increments of $500. Mr Abinanti sponsors and get passed a bill requiring schools to purchase EPI-Pens from a drug supplier. The drug supplier may or may not be Pfizer. Of course, many will champion that this is acceptable because after all, “it’s for the children.”

ABG cannot prove an ulterior motive between the financial payments made to Mr Abinanti and the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. But there is certainly a link that exists between the two! There's no two ways about it, the legislation he sponsored and got passed will benefit big drug companies such as Pfizer. Quid pro quo? In an economic climate as bad as what we have, shouldn’t Mr Abinanti be trying to help small businesses prosper instead of creating legislation guaranteeing humongous drug companies even more money?  Of course he should. But, if he’s obligated to Pfizer and any other companies, can we really expect anything else?

He also sponsored campaign finance legislation that would allow incumbents a gold-mine of money for campaigning if passed. This year Mr Abinanti showed that he raised $49,201.01 as of his last campaign finance filing with the Board of Elections. His legislation, if passed, promises to give him a lot more of our money so he can continue to run for office and find new and improved ways to waste our money. Would he stop taking payments from drug companies if the bill were passed into law? There's no way to tell. However, while past performance is no guarantee of future results, we think the results are kind of easy to guess. Mr Abinanti should be trying to curb taxes for the everyday person instead of trying to find new ways to waste our money for his benefit?

This Tuesday is your opportunity to make some of this right. Mr Abinanti has spent 24 years in public office and is a career politician whose primary interest has been proven to be Mr Abinanti. It's apparent he's gotten very comfortable in office. It's time to think differently. Make the right decision and maybe we can start to see A Better Greenburgh.