The Futility of Do-Nothing Elected Officials

Following the Memorial Day Parade, which honors our fallen war heroes, we had occasion to run into Assemblyman Democrat Tom Abinanti, who was doing the politician’s dance, Pressing The Flesh. In passing he made a comment about how he contributed to getting the Saw Mill River corridor cleaned out, aiding the homes and businesses that get flooded from storms every year. And, we challenged him that he has done nothing to aid the residents and businesses along the Bronx River corridor. His response was the usual, “I introduced a bill mandating the County be responsible for maintaining the river." It's a page right out of Mr Feiner’s playbook. Appear concerned, promise to "look into it" and then write a letter to another higher-up elected official and he has completed his obligation to do something.

When pushed, Abinanti tried to flip the conversation as to why we weren’t at some non-existent firematic event in Mt Pleasant the previous weekend, we countered this query with a response, "It wasn’t our district." His response was predictably, "Exactly.” He explained that the Bronx River corridor isn’t under his district. Oddly, it is! So why lie about it? Probably because he knew he’d been exposed. Then he claimed he couldn't talk because he was already late, mostly, we believe, for the pictures with local officials (re: media exposure – especially in a desperate election year).

Not surprisingly, Mr Feiner also panders to the media while excelling at pandering to residents. When residents along the Bronx River corridor were über-flooded by storms Irene and Ida, Mr Feiner once again promised action, which turned into a letter to Representatives Stewart-Cousins, Abinanti, A. Williams, Shimsky and probably a few others that wouldn’t be significant other than to reference a number of people he reached out to. The disingenuousness of this action was after he wrote the letter, not only was he done with his responsibility of helping his constituents, but he went to Fulton Park and promised residents there that FEMA (similar to another four-letter word) would purchase their homes from them, eliminating their nightmare. Never happened, plus FEMA explained there were numerous benchmarks the Town must meet before that would happen. Mr Feiner conveniently left that out.

Back to the campaigning, Abinanti claims he submitted the bill to the County, which passed and then he left for the State Assembly. He maintains it was then up to newly elected Shimsky to pick up that mantle and run with it. Maybe. The reality is it was up to Williams as “the Bronx River corridor falls in her jurisdiction” - to use Abinanti's words. The bigger issue that feel-good politicians like Abinanti utilize is pretending to address an issue through introducing legislation but not including funding for it. Yes, Abinanti drafted the plan but never drafted funding for it -- a waste of time!
“The Board of Legislators has done nothing on it since,” Abinanti said. “This is not a state function. My opponent is just trying to deflect from the failures of the Board of Legislators.” Shimsky countered with, “County government will need support at the state and federal levels on a year-over-year basis. Given the degree to which the problem is going to become more pervasive and severe, county government can’t do it alone.” Sounds good, but did they do anything about it? You know the answer.

His supporters claim he has co-sponsored over 500 bills, which passed both houses and he has been the prime sponsor of over 100 bills alone. One such “co-sponsored bill” was for fire department ambulance billing for fire departments that operate ambulance service to their community. What he doesn’t mention was that he only got on board as a co-sponsor after it left committee and it was assured of passage and being signed by the Governor. By the way, this bill has been introduced over 10 years ago and only got traction after the former Governor resigned. So, while Abinanti has been in office for 14 years, he again played it safe and sat on the sidelines. Just like with his impotent County flood responsibility bill.

I in a recent debate and discussions of housing and the high cost of living, Shimsky underscored that much of the county needs significantly subsidized and affordable housing.
“We have to make sure we get more affordable housing units built and think about where housing for a broader array of income levels can be built where it would not be as expensive,” Shimsky said. The obvious answer, never to even be whispered, would be upstate. Abinanti's solution? He said he and fellow state legislators have worked to control the high cost of living by eliminating taxes on gasoline, cutting taxes for the middle class, finding alternative resources for local governments to cut property taxes and allowing Westchester to increase its sales tax. For Abinanti’s 40 or so years as an elected official, he has helped increase all of these same taxes without regard to how expensive he has caused the area to get. “We’ve got to decrease the cost of living for people at this very expensive time,” Abinanti said. An expensive "time" that he is culpably responsible for creating as a 40-year career politician.

On an upcoming Tuesday near you, the Democratic primary will be held. Between early voting and other contrivances that have been added to the existing system, It promises nothing new. We’ll be saddled with the same old faces, clichés, hollow promises and ultimately less action with more finger-pointing and blame. The Democrat stalwarts will come out and either decide more of the same with Abinanti is ok or they’ll decide he should be pastured and give Shimsky a shot. Either way, the people whose homes and businesses flood will be forced to endure more of the same as well as the deck gets shuffled yet again.

The Town Board Should Reject the Sam's Club Gasoline Proposal

 Below is a letter that was sent to the Town regarding the opposition of the Sam’s Club application to install a gasoline depot at the Sam’s Club location on 9A/Saw Mill River Road:

Re: Sam's Real Estate Business Trust
333 Saw Mill River Road (Section 7.18, Block 52, Lot 32), Greenburgh, NY Verified Petition for Zoning Text Amendment to Permit Automotive Fuel Station

Dear Supervisor Feiner:

Introduction

This office represents numerous local small business owners and others in connection with the above-captioned petition by Sam's Real Estate Business Trust (“Sam’s Club”), which asks the Greenburgh Town Board to amend the Greenburgh zoning ordinance to allow exactly that which the zoning ordinance prohibits: the installation and operation of fuel pump islands and related gasoline dispensing facilities at the above-captioned retail location located in the Town's “DS” zoning district. The instant application by Sam’s Club comes after its past unsuccessful attempt to overturn the Greenburgh Building Inspector’s earlier determination that a “gasoline service station,” was not a use accessory to Sam's Club’s retail operation. The Zoning Board of Appeals agreed with the Building Inspector in that regard and denied the Sam’s Club appeal.

Undeterred by the foregoing, Sam’s Club’s latest attack on the zoning ordinance (and the land use planning concerns that inform it) comes in the form of a petition seeking a customized self-interested re-write of the zoning ordinance which, if implemented, would effectively create a new, never before contemplated, “Big Box with Gas” land use in the DS zoning district, with potentially deleterious effects on local traffic, parking, and economic development.

During the public hearing on the Sam’s Club application on February 10, 2022, which I observed, there was a brief colloquy ostensibly on the subject of prohibited “spot zoning” and how that legal principle should apply in the context of this Sam’s Club lobbying effort to change the zoning ordinance. Because certain of the parties to that colloquy seem to labor under a misunderstanding of applicable law and how it applies here, this correspondence will focus on that particular issue. In all other respects, my clients rest on the administrative record, the comments at the public hearing(s), and reserve all of their rights at law and/or in equity relative to these matters.

Background
A. Applicable Zoning Ordinance Provisions.

Sam’s Club is before the Town Board seeking certain amendments to Chapter 285-28 of the zoning ordinance, titled “DS Designed Shopping District.” For decades, allowed principal uses in the DS zoning district were limited to “[F]ully enclosed stores for the retail sale of consumer merchandise,” and “fully enclosed service establishments.”1 The uses currently permitted in the DS district by special use permit follow the same theme, allowing “[F]ully enclosed commercial recreation facilities.”2

The DS zoning district definition also includes certain prohibitions, which reflect the Town Board’s legislative determination that these enumerated land uses are inconsistent with the designated principal uses. For example, in the DS zoning district “[T]here shall not be permitted therein an automobile sales lot, motor vehicle salesroom, public garage, gasoline station . . . [or] car washing establishment.”3 As pertinent here, the zoning ordinance defines “Gasoline Service Station,” as “[A]ny area of land, including structures thereon, or any building or part thereof that is used for the sale of automotive fuel, related petroleum products and other motor vehicle accessories and which may or may not include facilities for washing, lubricating or otherwise servicing motor vehicles, but not including the painting thereof by any means.”4

Accordingly, the enumerated purposes of the DS zoning district are to provide Town residents with access to a retail-oriented shopping zone in “fully enclosed" stores or other facilities, unburdened by the presence of, among other enumerated incompatible land uses, “Gasoline Service Stations,” and/or any other use that would be offensive, obnoxious or detrimental to the surrounding area by reason of noise, gases, fumes, smoke, odor, dust or vibrations.”5

As we understand it, all these essential zoning classifications and restrictions were in place when Sam’s Club acquired the Saw Mill River Road parcel that is the ostensible (and perhaps sole) beneficiary of the zoning amendments Sam’s Club now proposes.

1 Zoning Ordinance § 285-28(A)(1)(a).
2 Zoning Ordinance § 285-28(A)(2).
3 Zoning Ordinance § 285-28(A)(1)(a)(2). 4 Zoning Ordinance, § 285-5.
5 Zoning Ordinance, § 285-28(A)(1)(a)(1).

B. Sam's Club's Unsuccessful Attempt to do as of Right that Which it Now Seeks to do by Zoning ordinance Amendment.

In or about mid-2003 and faced with the above unambiguous zoning restrictions and prohibitions, Sam's Club adopted an audacious strategy: claiming that its particular mode and method of fuel sales was not the textually prohibited “Gasoline Service Station” use in the DS zoning district, but instead was a use "accessory" – or customarily incidental and subordinate to – its permitted retail use. The Town Building Inspector, and then the Zoning Board of Appeals on a full administrative record, rejected this highly novel interpretation of the zoning ordinance in April 2004.

Given these determinations, Sam’s Club could only add gasoline service to the Saw Mill Road site if it obtained a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, or, as here, sought fundamental legislative changes to the zoning ordinance text, custom-made to overcome these prohibitions and allow Sam’s Club’s preferred use either as of right or by special use permit. Given that Sam’s Club purchased the land subject to these land use restrictions, a use variance is out of the question, as a matter of law.6 The instant application for a “zoning text amendment” followed.

C. The Instant Proposal for a Zoning Text Amendment.

In July 2019, Sam’s Club deployed a new strategy of lobbying the Town Board to amend the actual text of the zoning ordinance to clear away any regulatory hurdles in the way of its planned gasoline service station use. This latest effort would require the Town Board to amend Section 285-85 of the zoning ordinance to create a brand-new land use, titled “Automotive Fuel Station,” to be authorized in the DS district by special use permit. The only difference between this newly fashioned “Automotive Fuel Station” use and the prohibited “Gasoline Service Station” use is that Sam’s Club proposes to eliminate, not the outdoor (i.e., unenclosed) sale of fuel, which is the definitions’ main focus, but the ancillary services under the definition, “which may or may not include facilities for washing, lubricating or otherwise servicing motor vehicles.”7

6 Without belaboring the point, under New York law a local zoning board of appeals may only grant a use variance if the applicant demonstrates that zoning regulations it seeks to vary have caused "unnecessary hardship." To prove unnecessary hardship, an applicant must demonstrate that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located: (i) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable economic return; (ii) that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the zoning district; (iii) that the requested use variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and, as pertinent here, (iv) the alleged hardship was not "self-created," meaning in existence when the applicant purchased the property at issue. See, e.g., NY Town Law § 267-b(2); see also Clark v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 301 NY 86, 91 (1950) ("Nothing less than a showing of hardship special and peculiar to the applicant's property will empower the board to allow a variance."). Sam's Club obviously could never satisfy this stringent standard. Hence, the instant application to rewrite the zoning ordinance instead. 7

Remarkably, Sam’s Club has provided the Town Board with the exact language it wishes to see legislated:

Automotive Fuel Station shall mean the use of any portion of a parcel of property that meets the standards set forth in Section 285-28(h) of the Zoning Ordinance, as evidenced by the grant of a special use permit by the Town Board, for the operation of up to ten (10) fuel pumps (i.e., 20 fueling positions) for the sale of automotive fuel. The portion of said tract of land utilized as an Automotive Fuel Station shall be exclusively limited to the sale of automotive fuel and specifically prohibited from selling any and all other goods or services including, without limitation, motor vehicle accessories, car washing, lubricating, painting, mechanical repair or otherwise servicing motor vehicles by any means.

In other words, Sam's Club has tailored its proposed new land use classification to the specific and unique nature of Big Box gasoline sales: because Big Box retailer gas sales are used as an enticement to its retail sales, Big Box retailers (unlike nearly every small business owner in the local gasoline market) need not offer any of these ancillary or related sales or services to sustain their business model. All they require are pump islands and a single employee to oversee them.

The disingenuousness of Sam’s Club’s position, including its attempt to use the alleged absence of ancillary sales and service at the point of dispensing as an enticement to the amendments it seeks, is revealed the minute one steps through the door of the Sam’s Club retail store. While inside, one can purchase a wide variety of the ostensibly prohibited (under the Sam’s Club proposal) “motor vehicle accessories,” including windshield wipers, lubricants, cooling fluids, and the like, and can obtain other (again ostensibly prohibited) automotive repair and/or maintenance services, including a set of new tires, mounted balanced, and installed.8 The materials Sam’s Club has before the Board, while voluminous, never disclose this key fact: regardless of any limitation in the proposed amendments or other prohibitions, Sam’s Club is selling ancillary automotive supplies and services and will continue to do so. Thus, even under the proposed amended zoning text, the addition of gasoline dispensing at Sam's Club would render it completely indistinguishable from the “Gasoline Service Stations” that are prohibited in the DS zoning district.

The above definition is thus of no benefit to any gasoline retailer other than a Sam’s Club type operation, based on the unique nature and configuration of its gasoline sales business model. On the other hand, its adoption would mean that any parcel in the DS zoning district that meets the 5-acre minimum area standard would be eligible for a special use permit authorizing the same kind of “Automotive Fuel Station” use. Therefore, in all material respects the proposed amendments create a new “Big Box with gasoline” land use. Sam’s Club tried unsuccessfully to get this in the past, and now simply have decided to try again but by using a different method.

Controlling Legal Principles

At the February 10, 2022, public hearing, certain of the comments, in particular those of a Town Board member and the applicant's representative, seemed to suggest or otherwise claim that because Sam's Club has not sought a zoning map amendment, but has instead sought to achieve the same goal by lobbying the Town to adopt fundamental changes to the underlying zoning scheme, the present application is somehow shielded against claims of improper “spot zoning.” But this contention, which elevates form over substance in the extreme, is mistaken as a matter of law.

A. Spot Zoning Law and Doctrine Applies Here and Prohibits Enactment of the Sam's Club Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.

In New York, a bedrock principle of zoning law is that a local government's zoning must be "made in accordance with a comprehensive plan."9 Indeed, nearly a half-century ago the New York Court of Appeals explained that a comprehensive plan is the "essence of zoning," without which “there can be no rational allocation of land use.”10 By the same token, Town Law § 265 authorizes Town Boards to amend local zoning regulations, stating “[S]uch regulations, restrictions and boundaries,” i.e., those adopted under Town Law § 263 and which must therefore be “made in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” may “from time to time be amended.”11

Give the above statutory structure and language, any contention that the initial adoption of a zoning map and/or zoning regulations must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan, but amendments thereto made at the behest of a private landowner are not, misses the mark entirely. Amendments to local zoning, even those which (as here) do not include changes to the zoning map or reclassification of an entire district, are subject to claims of impermissible spot zoning.12 That logic is particularly applicable where as here, the proposed amendment adds an entirely new land use classification and is thus the functional equivalent of and therefore indistinguishable in effect from a rezoning.

And as to spot zoning, New York courts consider “whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan, whether it is compatible with surrounding uses, the likelihood of harm to surrounding properties, the availability and suitability of other parcels, and the recommendations of planning staff.”13 But, ultimately, the issue distills to “whether the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community.”14

9 See NY Town Law § 263 ("Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan . . .").
10 See Udell v. Haas, 21 NY2d 463 (1968).
11 See NY Town Law § 265(1).
12 See, e.g., Matter of VTR FV, LLC v. Town of Guilderland, 101 AD3d 1532, 1534 (3d Dep't 2012) (applying spot zoning analysis to proposed local law amendment which expanded the definition of "nursing home" to include an assisted living facility and/or memory care facility but concluding that the amendment (unlike here) was "part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community") (citations omitted); Accord Kravetz v. Plenge, 84 AD2d (4th Dep't 1982) (applying spot zoning doctrine to amendment seeking to allow hotels in the existing zoning district).

13 See Save Our Forest Action Coalition v. City of Kingston, et al., 246 AD2d 217 (3d Dep't 1998) (citing 3 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning § 28.04 [4th ed.]) (held, no spot zoning where "the primary motivation for the zoning amendment was to support local economic development through retention of the City's largest employer and reap associated economic and tax benefits in connection with the development of a business park.")..

14 Id. at 221 (citations omitted).

Obviously, the current Sam’s Club zoning amendment proposal did not arise from any local comprehensive planning processes, nor does it represent a response to any changed circumstances in the relevant zoning district requiring an areawide change. Instead, it represents a proposal for legislative action by the Board to benefit one party - Sam’s Club. The proposal is specifically tailored to allow a kind of gasoline dispensary business model that is economically unsustainable except for in the big box retail context. Put another way, no local small gasoline service station owner could seek to expand into the DS zoning district under the Sam’s Club definition because they rely on ancillary sales and services to survive, not the enticement of lower retail prices in an adjacent store, and the Sam’sClub proposal prohibits such ancillary sales and services. The Board is thus being asked to customize the zoning ordinance to meet the needs of a single class of landowner. That is not zoning as that term is understood in New York; it is the very antithesis of zoning.

Notwithstanding this more recent tack, the record shows that Sam’s Club had spot zoning concerns specifically in mind when it filed the application for a zoning text amendment. For example, Sam's Club dedicated an entire section of its petition to what it describes as “Consistency with the Town Comprehensive Plan,” claiming that adoption of its customized Big Box with gasoline zoning classification will somehow “enable more consistent and efficient use of appropriate commercial property within the DS Zoning District.”

But the Sam’s Club analysis of comprehensive plan consistency, such as it is, suffers from a number of fatal flaws. First, the general thrust of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan when it comes to retail access is the preservation or enhancement of open space and establishment or maintenance of walkable shopping centers. The Sam’s Club proposal achieves neither of these goals. On the contrary, it turns the existing zoning ordinances focus on “Fully enclosed” retail services on its head by creating a single idiosyncratic land use (unenclosed gasoline pumps with no ancillary sales or services) allowed by special use permit.

Next. Sam’s Club attempts to shoehorn its proposed use into that part of the Comprehensive Plan seeking to “implement economic development strategies that take into account the changing nature of retail.”15 But the text of that section of the comprehensive plan makes plain that the “changing nature of retail” it refers to has nothing to do with permitting gasoline sales at big box stores, but instead merely refers to the shift to “ever increasing online sales,” and the need for the community to adapt to that change from traditional “brick and mortar” retail, to online sales and services. It provides no traction to Sam’s Club in this instance.

Continuing this pattern of selective citation, Sam’s Club claims that its proposal is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s statements and policies encouraging “innovative and flexible regulations that facilitate identified site improvements” and/or which “support flexible parking.” But here again Sam’s Club has completely divorced those values from their context: in both cases, those statements were made in furtherance of the overall planning goal of creating new, walkable, and livable retail areas. Indeed, the first policy set forth under that broad heading is to “Support the attributes of successful suburban business districts that promote pedestrian orientation and high quality of public space.”16 In other words, to the extent flexible zoning

15 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 11.2.1.6. 16 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 11.5.1.1.

standards might further other stated comprehensive plan goals, they are to be encouraged. However, nothing in the comprehensive plan suggests that flexible zoning standards should be used to grant existing retail landowners' permission to impose fundamental changes to an existing zoning scheme that serve no other purpose than economic gain to the applicant.

On the other hand, the Comprehensive Plan has an entire chapter dedicated to “Sustainability,” including smart growth principles and other necessary responses to climate change.17 Section 3.6 of the Comprehensive Plain in particular focuses on, among other things, “Alternative Vehicle Technology.”Apart from vague promises to discuss the possibility of electric vehicle charging stations at an indeterminate point in the future, the Sam’s Club proposal offers absolutely nothing that is consistent with or otherwise furthers any of the Town's sustainability and global warming concerns. If anything, the proposal as currently fashioned only serves to exacerbate those concerns by adding a 14-pump gasoline service facility with no corresponding offsets for the greenhouse gas effects that facility will create – not even a promise of a single electric vehicle charging station.

In summary, it is indisputable that the Sam’s Club proposal neither arises out of nor is compatible with the values expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal did not come to the Town Board by the petition of a group of interested residents or businesses collectively seeking change to improve their quality of life. The proposal did not derive from any organic internal Town planning process, or to update the zoning ordinance or respond to changed circumstances. It constitutes a naked attempt by a single economic actor to enhance its own profitability at the expense of a carefully crafted zoning scheme by adding exactly that which the existing zoning ordinance prohibits. If that is not prohibited spot zoning, then nothing is.18

B. The Special Use Permit Process Affords Little Protection Here.

Along the same lines, there appeared to be some suggestion at the recent public hearing that the overwhelming public concern and outrage over the Sam’s Club proposal should somehow be attenuated by the fact that Sam’s Club must, if the Board adopts the proposed amendments, “come back” to the Town Board for a special use permit. However, “the inclusion of the [specially] permitted use in the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood.”19 Thus, while the “Town Board still retains some discretion to evaluate each application for a special use permit to determine whether applicable criteria have been met,” its ability to consider the broader context, including the broad socio-economic and land use compatibility issues raised on this record by local small business owners and others, will be severely constrained if not eliminated altogether if it adopts the requested zoning text amendment.20

17 Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3.0.
18 And given the overwhelming public opposition to the Sam's Club proposal, as documented now in numerous print, online and television broadcast news stories, Sam's Club's representation of "overwhelming public support for the Project," rings hollow and should be rejected. See Applicant's Correspondence to Town Board dated July 28, 2021.
19 See Matter of North Shore Steak House, Inc. v. Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vill. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 243 (1972).
20 See Matter of Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 90 NY2d 1000, 1002 (1997) ("the board may not base its decision [on a special use permit] on generalized community objections.").

Accordingly, while the special use permit process is not entirely chimerical, it offers little to no protection against the incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan of the Sam’s Club proposed zoning amendment that is now set forth on this record. No rational person could rely on the special use permit process to cure or ameliorate the harsh, widespread, and inevitable impacts of the Sam's Club proposal on the local planning process. That process thus offers little in mitigation of the otherwise significant impacts the proposed amendment would have on the DS zoning district.

Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, and for those set forth on the administrative record and/or otherwise stated during the public hearing process, we respectfully submit that the Sam’s Club proposal seeking to dictate how the Town Board utilizes its zoning power should be rejected. The Greenburgh zoning ordinance is not some playground toy to be molded at the whim or behest of an affluent or powerful resident seeking to maximize profits. It is the expression of a fixed set of sound planning principles intended to ensure consistency and compatibly amongst nearby land uses and ensure the continued high quality of life that Greenburgh residents deserve and have become accustomed to under this and previous Board’s stewardship. Allowing a carefully balanced zoning scheme to be upset in order to satisfy the economic desires of a single district landowner would be an unfortunate outcome, indeed. To the extent you have been counseled that Sam’s Club’s application is not spot zoning, such counsel is wrong. We ask you to maintain and protect the integrity of the zoning law.

The Town Board should reject the Sam's Club proposal.

Respectfully submitted, YOUNG / SOMMER, LLC

William A. Hurst

cc: Members of the Greenburgh Town Board; David R. Fried, Esq., First Deputy Town Attorney; Gerald Bunting, Esq.

Community Stands United Against Sam’s Club Plan

There was a rally attended by about 60 or so concerned members of the Greenburgh community including owners, employees, and family members of women and minority-owned small businesses, environmental advocates, civic leaders. Also in attendance were Assemblyman Abinanti, Westchester County Legislators Shimsky and Williams Johnson. Everyone’s message was clear: Greenburgh’s Town Board must not approve a zoning change that would allow Elmsford’s Sam’s Club to build a mega gasoline station center. Hundreds of signatures from regular customers and local residents have been collected by the stations opposing the zoning change. 

A recent environmental review by DT Consulting Services, Inc. concluded that the area proposed for petroleum bulk storage at the Sam’s Club site sits in a special flood hazard area and is within close proximity to three bodies of water, the Saw Mill River, Mine Brook, and an unnamed tributary which all feed into the Hudson River. The study concluded that “granting approval of an auto fuel center within this area could cause undue risk.” Not only is this move risky, but the inaction and complacency of the ineffective and incompetent Town Supervisor and his Board, the County Legislators and State representatives regarding the horrendous flooding conditions they condone of both the Bronx River and Saw Mill corridors – the only exits for water out of the County and in particular, the Town – make this project impossible to approve! Fix the flooding before aggravating the situation with more bad decisions!

“If the Town Board approves Sam’s Club’s request for a spot zoning change, this would have an immediate and drastic impact on 200 local small business employees and the environment,” said Gerald Bunting, an attorney challenging the zoning change on behalf of the business community. “We are here to say ‘No’ to Sam’s Club’s plan and ‘shame on Town Hall’ for even contemplating this proposal that would store underground tanks holding 60,000 gallons of fuel within close proximity to the Saw Mill and Hudson Rivers. This is an environmental risk at best, and a potential catastrophe at worst.”

Leo Zulfikar, owner of a BP station on Saw Mill River Road which features an outdoor iconic 20-foot-tall Paul Bunyan statue, shared: “For 25 years I’ve put blood, sweat, and lots of equity into this station, and it feeds the families of 10 of my employees. I watched as Sam’s Club tried pushing this very same plan forward in 2004 and it was smartly denied by the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals. I don’t know why now, 18 years later, our local government would want to hurt us – they are supposed to support us to build and grow to better the community, not stack the deck against us.”

The proposed change, titled “Local Law amending Section 285-28 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled “DS Designed Shopping District” as it relates to Automotive Fuel Station Uses” will hear public comment tonight at 7PM via Zoom. The Greenburgh Town Board is not allowing in-person attendance using the Covid-19 excuse that has conveniently allowed Mr Feiner and his Board to keep residents and taxpayers at bay. This is a blatant maneuver to initiate Spot Zoning (again) for a particular applicant under the guise of being a Town-wide change. Open government our a$$!

The zoning law change is being met by vigorous opposition by many local civic groups. A resolution was read that had been sent by Madelon K. O’Shea, chairperson of the Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations: “At a Council of Greenburgh Civic Association meeting held by Zoom on January 20, 2022, representatives discussed the application seeking an amendment to the Greenburgh Zoning Ordinance which would permit the Sam’s Club membership warehouse on Saw Mill River Road to sell automotive fuel. By majority vote CGCA representatives adopted a resolution to oppose the requested zoning change and to support the numerous independent gas station operators and their employees in Greenburgh who would be negatively impacted if the requested zoning change was permitted.”

Vince Ferrandino, an Elmsford-based planner and principal of Ferrandino & Associates Inc. reported, in a traffic review of the project, that the 16 new fueling stations would have a significant negative impact on traffic and parking at the Sam’s Club site and along the Rte. 9A corridor: “Sam’s Club intends to eliminate at least 113 parking spaces to make way for their proposed gas station, and that would be particularly onerous during holidays and on weekends. Additionally, the proposed fueling facility will negatively impact circulation throughout the parking lot, and along adjacent streets on both Rte. 9A and Warehouse Lane. For these and other reasons, we recommend that the Town deny the application.”

Hartsdale 4-Corners Needs Change

A presentation to the Town Board at their weekly work session by the owners of Inspired Places touched on a good number of items that could potentially change the Hartsdale 4-corners (4-C) area. However, for this area to change, some radical thinking, fresh ideas, money and most importantly zoning changes will be required. Whether or not these changes can happen must begin with the Town Board. To that end, Mr Feiner asked for a report in two weeks on how to make this process move forward. Cooler heads prevailed, however, and it was decided that Garrett Duquesne would work with the women and notify the Board when the information required would be ready for the next step.

Much was said as to what might be required to transform the 4-corners area from what it currently is now to what it might become. There were six topics of discussion: zoning, mobility, infrastructure, environmental, aesthetics and community well-being. Zoning, the first and probably foremost catalyst to a 4-C change, rests solely in the lap of Mr Feiner and his Board. Since we know they are more than willing to change zoning codes for any developer faster than a hooker asking if you’re looking to party, we don’t see much resistance here. However, while his Board’s zeal to please their master aside, it will be up to residents to ensure the zoning changes are correct, qualified, and will not be used by others elsewhere. An example is that the apartment buildings on Hartsdale Avenue in Hartsdale are zoned M-174. Mr Feiner pushed for the Westhab building in Fulton Park to also be M-174. Fortunately, after much community opposition, Westhab acquiesced from a 7-story building to a 4-story one with an assurance from them and Mr Feiner’s Board that they would never build “up” in perpetuity.

So with no cohesive zoning plan for the Town, Mr Feiner routinely offers zoning changes to developers for what zoning we do have and then informs the public that the Town will benefit from the changes and reap millions in taxes, permits and fees – even though those numbers rarely, if ever, materialize. Or, if they do materialize, those funds are used to pay off guilty verdict fines such as the Fortress Bible Church discrimination case for $6.5 million. Given Mr Feiner and his Board’s willingness, if not eagerness, to spot-zone, the Town needs to have a vehicle to control this wanton disregard for the early Town planner’s vision for the Town. This could have happened when the Town spent, or rather wasted, 8-years and $600,000 developing a Town Comprehensive Plan that effectively does nothing to address zoning, future growth and/or growth limitations for the Town. Nor does it reign in control of the Supervisor and his Board from spot zoning as they please. This too is one of the costs of not having term limits. After some 25-years in office, most residents are hungry for a leadership change. Sadly, both the Democrats and Republicans will offer none.

Based on the recent and very protracted Edgemont Incorporation Council’s (EIC) attempt to have the Edgemont Unincorporated section of Town seek to incorporate and become a village within the Town, we believe Mr Feiner will appear to make every attempt to placate Hartsdale residents. This is primarily because since Mr Feiner has tried numerous ways to thwart the EIC attempts, the rumor mill began churning of Hartsdale incorporation talk ­– which must scare the hell out of Mr Feiner and his Board! They don’t need to be dealing with incorporation on two fronts.

With Inspired Places, LLC, presentation, represented by Hartsdale residents Patrice Ingrassia and Christine Broda, they highlighted some of the issues that have plagued the 4-C intersection. Basically, the retail environment has suffered due to high permit fees and length of time to acquire them, inadequate parking, flooding, heavily congested roadways with bottlenecks, internet purchasing, a lack of foot or pedestrian traffic and so on. These problems have all been talked about before, lamented by the Town administration and later ignored as they move to the newest shiny object that they can publicize and politicize.

Other issues also factor in to the equation, such as an abhorrent area of uncoordinated signage, strings of overhead wiring, old and outdated building facades and that there is little if any pervious space. The entire area is taken up by the various buildings’ footprints, concrete and asphalt. As pointed out during the presentation, the 4-C area is mainly regarded as an intersection of two major roadways. Central Park Avenue and Hartsdale Avenue, providing the lion’s share  of east-west and north-south automotive connectivity. What is seriously lacking is a safe and easy manner for pedestrians to park and frequent the businesses that have staked a claim in the 4-C area.

We are happy to see this study undertaken and endorsed by many. And while it would prove interesting to see how well it progresses, it is but the tip of the iceberg. First, traffic congestion and flow needs to be addressed beyond saying everyone should use mass transit or we should have more buses. We have witnessed repeated issues with the Bee-Line bus system cutting routes and frequencies of buses due to declining ridership, limited schedules (including holiday schedules), availability to key areas and cost to operate. Several years in a row have seen the Express Bus System in jeopardy as well as other routes abandoned as not being cost-effective where they were.

Second, flooding must be addressed as a Town and County-wide issue if we are to truly make any inroads in controlling flooding, assisting our taxpaying residents and businesses, and helping everyone in the Town flourish. The Bronx and Saw Mill rivers are the two major pathways for flood and runoff water to exit our area. Both of these rivers must be cleaned, dredged, widened and then maintained so our residents can live safely and dryly. The County, Towns and Villages must also limit new construction and upgrade existing infrastructure to help with all of this.

Third, zoning must be changed in a way that will not allow it to be bastardized by a developer and then agreed to by any elected officials. The pseudo-Comprehensive Plan could have addressed this and put forth a zoning plan that assisted in the Town’s future growth. But they did not. Instead, they chose to politicize the effort and create a document that discusses global warming and such. Want to address global warming? Create a document that does what the residents told you they wanted: less impervious space, smaller buildings, more green space, bike and walking paths to name a few and leave the political statements for another time.

Finally, with or without a Comprehensive Plan that is viable, we need to have a direction that the public requests and that politicians can join in to have a focus to improve the Town (and County) resident’s lives. The Hartsdale 4-Corners project could be the first step in the right direction. Let’s hope so. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Storm Highlights Frustrations

It seems that every politician is trying to grab more and more headlines during the two most recent storms. Newly elected County Executive George Latimer has had numerous television clips showing him basically yelling into the phone at ConEd executives. Anyone who has gone to and had to deal with the Town Board at a meeting will certainly empathize with his level of frustration. These first 100-year storms and now 500-year storms seem to be happening every year, often several times in one year. But why? There is no easy answer to this unless you are a politician. Of course, it’s climate change – or is it?

In Mr Feiner’s most recent email blast, he says:
“I'm very aggravated. Thought and hoped that everyone would have their power back yesterday as Con Ed promised earlier in the week. Was wrong. Although many residents did contact me--delighted that their power was restored sometime yesterday, others are still out. As of 9 AM there were 338 homes in Greenburgh out of power, down from over 1000 at some points yesterday. Last week there were over 4,000 outages. Con Ed has not been notifying local officials from anywhere in the county what streets they are going to next. We can yell, scream, beg them to help. We can highlight hard luck stories. Sometimes they listen. They also have not always responded to some of our requests. Every municipal official I speak with from other communities has shared similar stories. And some communities are worst off --have more outages.” Now he is starting to know how residents feel whenever we’re trying to get answers from him and his Board!

Mr Feiner has also gone to great lengths to highlight some of those without power or the resources to be able to leave for a stay with relatives, friends or simply a hotel. We truly sympathize with those people without power and with damage to their homes. Oddly, the hotels in our area are all rather expensive, now including a new 3% room tax that Mr Feiner and his Board, along with Assemblyman Abinanti and Senator Stewart-Cousins could not wait to impose on guests. Their claim was that this would not cost residents because they, ahem, don’t rent rooms in Greenburgh. How’s that working out now? Karma.

After the storm always seems to be a political free-for-all to see who can beat up the big bad utilities for not doing something right, not doing anything at all or not doing enough. One way or the other the news media will jump at each one of their attempts to point fingers and replay it incessantly. The utilities are Public Service organizations, regulated by what must seem like billions of regulations put in place by, yes, politicians. This seems to be a sort of Catch-22. One thing the politicians never do is to blame themselves!

Mr Latimer, while new in the County Executive position was a County Legislator, Assemblyman and Senator before assuming this new position. So none of this is new to him, and he has not done much in his previous positions to alleviate any of these difficulties. He remains culpable to a degree and should not get a pass because he’s in a new position. Mr Feiner on the other hand, has been in office even longer and actually exacerbated the problem.

After Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene, the Fulton Park Civic Association leaders met with Commissioner Victor Carosi and Richard Fon about trying to get the trees in the area trimmed to prevent further trees from coming down and taking out wires. To their credit, and the efforts of many, a good number of problematic trees were taken down. Because of that effort, no trees have come down onto wires, causing any power outages in that corridor. This type of maintenance needs to happen regularly. Mr Feiner, while always happy to talk about issues, is also very unwilling to take action – unless of course he can get publicity from it. Instead of focusing on the 2% tax cap – which isn’t really followed anyway, Mr Feiner should focus on spending some money on maintenance for the taxpayers well being, instead of $6.5 million fines from guilty verdicts as with the Fortress Bible Discrimination case.

Indirectly, however, Mr Feiner has had trees removed by authorizing all of the overdevelopment throughout the Town. Yes, hundreds and maybe even thousands of trees and pervious space have been removed or will be removed to permit zone-busting, oversized and inappropriate buildings wherever a developer asks for it. The latest will be the former Elmwood Country Club, which succumbed to a falling membership and sold the property to a developer seeking to alter the property’s zoning to create 175 townhouses.

Each time we create more impervious space through these types of construction projects, the remaining permeable spaces wind up getting abnormally inundated with water. As the area saturates more and more, to the point of over-saturation, the soil’s stability is undermined and the trees, usually the older, taller and heavier ones come down. Maintenance of the large trees, as well as a reduction of these over-sized projects and a stricter adherence to our zoning and building codes would surely help.

Several years ago, after Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene, Mr Feiner lied to a flood ravaged resident on Old Kensico Road that F.E.M.A. would purchase their home to help them get “out from under”, that resident learned an inconvenient truth: Mr Feiner will say anything without regard to whether it is true or not! Regardless, yesterday Mr Feiner sent out another Feiner email blast that Town employees had finished clearing the trees off of all roadways. Yesterday. Why is that important? Because the utility workers were often unable to access their power equipment until the Town cleared a way for them to get in and operate safely. So, while we feel bad for those residents who have been suffering without power, there is plenty of blame to go around, starting with Mr Feiner’s and his administration.

We will continue to get more severe storms such as this. Mother Nature, while full of surprises, can afford some predictability that will allow us to be better prepared. First, we must dredge the Bronx and Saw Mill Rivers to help storm water flow unencumbered. Second, we must have a tree trimming initiative that operates all of the time, not just when it’s convenient for a TV sound byte. Third, any new construction should mandate underground wiring. Fourth, Mr Feiner needs to operate during storms at the County’s Emergency Command Facility in Hawthorne. That’s where government leaders, utility leaders, police, fire and other heads of organizations operate from during an emergency. Why does this make sense? Because Mr Feiner could simply turn to the head of ConEd and ask direct questions and get direct answers.

There are other things that need improvement such as our sorely neglected infrastructure. How this Town operates is woefully inefficient and it shows up painfully for the abused and beleaguered taxpayers time and time again, especially highlighted during storms. This has to change. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Believability

Is believability for a politician necessary to govern successfully? We think it should be. That’s why we were a bit dismayed when our local daily paper had an article about “Tackling The Flood.” It went on to discuss the efforts of three communities, Scarsdale, Eastchester and New Rochelle, and how they’ve begun to execute a plan to alleviate flooding along the Hutchinson River in their respective communities. Each signed an agreement, entitled the Hutchinson River Flood Mitigation Project, to try to do something about flooding in their communities. Will they accomplish their goal? We’re not sure, but we believe they will try. Welcome to hurricane season.

The same issue has been brought up at countless meetings for the town of Greenburgh, by different people as well as different organizations. Sadly, with all of the talk about flooding in Greenburgh, nothing has ever been done nor changed to improve the situation during 24-years of the Feiner administration. Taxpayers, both commercial and residential, continue to get flooded. The continued flooding actively forces people to seek higher ground, ultimately with the driest solution being to move out of our town. After all, if Mr. Feiner continues to do nothing but provide lip service what other recourse is there?

Several years ago Mr. Feiner asked to create a task force to address flooding. A task force was formed. Greenburgh Commissioner Victor Carosi and the White Plains Public Works Commissioner were named co-chairs for this committee. County Legislator Alfreda Williams, is also on this commission. There may be several other people on this task force that are also of no consequence and contribute nothing to the flooding problem still being experienced by residents and businesses. Why have they not done anything after having an initial meeting, offering no subsequent plan for relief for these beleaguered taxpayers? And, now it’s hurricane season again with no solutions.

It’s easier to talk about flooding than it is to do something about it, such as coming up with a plan of attack similar to what we see with this Hutchinson River flood mitigation project. The dormant task force has not met in over two years since they were founded. We’re sure if they had they would have said there is no money or there are too many boundaries to try work with to clean the river spaces out, or to dredge them, or to somehow open them up to get a better flow of water. It’s easier to talk about it, to listen to us complain about it, than it is to fix it. After all, these elected officials and subsequent appointed officials know they will be reelected, typically without any opposition, and will reappoint their favorites once again. Losing a couple of hundred collective votes is nothing for Mr Feiner when he receives 7,000 votes running unopposed!

Whenever there is media focus either on a politician visiting the scene of a flood, or the media interviewing the flooded residents, the politicians all say that something must be done and then they point fingers at other politicians either uninvolved, not from the area, or are totally inappropriate for the problem at hand. Previously, Mr. Feiner has passed the buck to County legislators, State legislators or FEMA and the federal government. In fact he told one resident from Old Kensico Road that he would reach out to FEMA on their behalf to see about purchasing their flooded property. He knew that was a lie because the municipality must first perform a number of steps before FEMA will even entertain involvement. It made for great TV sound bytes but little else. Finally, after receiving no help for assistance of any kind from Mr. Feiner, specifically the Town, the County, State, or Federal government, especially FEMA, those same residents sold their house at a loss and moved to another area!

Mr. Feiner went to great lengths to appear on News 12 to bemoan the lack of action by other politicians for his valued constituents. These so-called valued constituents quickly realized that they were mere pawns in Mr. Feiner’s attempt to gain more publicity for himself. While he was successful in beating the drum getting publicity for himself, he threw a small portion of his constituency, literally, down the river along with many of their prized, ruined or irreplaceable possessions. Now that hurricane season is upon us the proverbial barn door has already been closed as the flooding begins once again. With all the development that has taken place in the region there are only two outlets for rainwater to go. The first on the west side of Greenburgh is the Saw Mill River. The second is on the east side of Greenburgh and that is the Bronx River. After the flooding caused by hurricane and tropical storm Irene, the Village of Elmsford mounted a campaign to clean out the Saw Mill River after a resident videotaped the debris blocking the waters flow causing some of the flooding in the area. Mr Feiner jumped on that bandwagon and received all kinds of publicity, but actually did nothing while the flooding continues.

During all the hype that Mr. Feiner and others utilized for their advantage, they ignored the Bronx River corridor and the residents that live near it. They too were severely flooded during Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Sandy. At no point beyond the TV cameras did Mr. Feiner or other politicians offer to do anything to remediate the problems in the Bronx River corridor and the flow of water, especially during even minor storms. Mr. Feiner remains dry and aloof in his gated community in Boulder Ridge. Other politicians also remain dry during storms and bad weather. The role of government is to protect its people – all of its people! That hasn’t happened for those that live along the two corridors that parallel the only two rivers out of the Town and County. Both the Bronx River and the Saw Mill River need attention and residents need relief!

Every community that has the river passing through it needs to take ownership and responsibility for keeping the river clear. Individuals must participate as well. One simple thing individuals can do is simply don’t litter – it clogs our storm drains and ultimately our rivers. By collectively doing this it will help to allow the flow of water to better reach the sound shore waterways and other outlets and not back up into our neighborhoods, homes, and businesses.  By investing in our infrastructure and maintaining all of our wetland areas, we will be helping everyone enjoy a better quality of living in our towns and villages. This needs to happen sooner rather than later so we can have A Better Greenburgh.

Town Board Goes Against A Good Project

There is a proposal in front of the Town Board to build an apartment complex at Lawrence Avenue and Saw Mill River Road (and Parkway). It is comprised  of 272 apartments, down from its original proposal of 296, based on feedback the Jefferson Management team received from the community. Almost immediately after the proposal “hit the bricks,” Mr Feiner came out against it, as did Ardsley resident and Town Board member Diana Juettner, claiming it would burden the infrastructure. While hypocritical to say the least, the Jefferson offered to make significant changes to the area, even going as far south of the project itself to Jackson Avenue. The Loft complex approved by Mr Feiner and his Board near Jackson Avenue offered no changes. Nor has Mr Feiner and Ms Juettner ever offered help to the area.

But the lies have already begun from the corner office. The offering has not generated as much “significant controversy” as Mr Feiner would have you believe. It is he that is trying to create a controversy where controversy does not exist. The development, while overgrown with weeds, dumped dirt and debris, offers value from the stand point of flooding and water absorption Still, they resist this property in a commercial area, ideally suited for a project such as this. You can read more about this project in our earlier post from Sunday, April 19, 2015
JPI Proposing 296 Multi-Family Apartments Jefferson at Saw Mill River(http://abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/search?q=jefferson)

Mr Feiner claims he is “proposing initiatives” that frankly are either already in the original proposal or too ridiculous to entertain. However, Mr Feiner's standard method of operation is to throw these types of inane ideas out there and hope that something gains traction. But he knows that if he can get some of his supporters to be at the meeting to parrot these points, he’ll get what he desires in publicity from the media, a quote or two on News 12 and possibly other TV stations - depending on whom he invites.

Here's a few of his “initiatives.” Ours are in black, his are in blue:

Widening of both Lawrence Street and Saw Mill River Road to include turning lanes as appropriate from Lawrence street to entrance of the thruway. I believe that the entire length of Saw Mill River Road from Jackson Ave to Ardsley downtown should be widened. 
The plans show a widening and turning lane added on 9A at Jackson Avenue to allow for an increase in traffic heading south on 9A. As we’ve written previously, the Ginsburgh developer of The Loft should be doing this but is not. Nor, is Mr Feiner saddling them with similar conditions.

Construction of sidewalks and bike lanes on both Lawrence and Saw Mill Road from Jackson to downtown Ardsley to promote safe pedestrian/bicycling.

Sidewalks are a condition in our Town for all new construction, regardless of whether or not they connect or lead to anything. These were in the initial plans that had been submitted. The Jefferson project has also made accommodations for bike path use as well as creating a section of public parking that bikers can use to come to the site by car, park and ride the bike path.

Construction of an overpass from Lawrence Street westbound to Saw Mill River Parkway Southbound. As it is the light is problematic, prone to back up and causes systematic delays.

Our staffers travel this route every day and say the light is not so much the issue as are the quantity of construction vehicles moving to and from the area, slowing things down. As our elected representatives, if the traffic light is problematic, then it is up to he, Ms Juettner and the other Town Board members to get it fixed, not the Jefferson!

Construction of additional parking in downtown Ardsley to address the shortage of parking in the business district. Almost 300 new apartments will definitely increase parking problems.
While parking in Ardsley has been an issue for at least 24-years, Mr Feiner’s tenure as Supervisor, he has never made any overtures to address their parking issues. In fact, their Village Board had sidewalks added in Town through grant money Mr Feiner didn't even apply for. The Jefferson plans show all parking for the facility will be provided on their property and not utilize any from the Village proper. If this facility was in the Village itself it might affect parking – but it’s not and it won’t.

Possible construction of additional parking at area train stations to address commuter parking problems.

Even after being lifelong residents, this has us baffled as we cannot locate a train station in Ardsley.

A requirement that frequent shuttle service be provided to train station and downtown Ardsley.
Again, there is no train station in downtown Ardsley.This indicates that this is purely a boilerplate exercise by Mr Feiner.

We need to analyze ability of first responders to come to the assistance of those with emergency medical needs if the Parkway is closed and there are major traffic jams on Lawrence and on Saw Mill River Road.
This is a phony excuse. There has been no study for any other projects anywhere in the Town that was ever denied for lack of access to emergency responders. Emergency vehicles always get through traffic. In fact, the one project that actually does have inadequate access for emergency vehicles is the Brightview Assisted Living facility at Rt 119 and Benedict Avenue. Yet, Mr Feiner and his Board made themselves the lead agency for the project and then approved every aspect of it. Fire trucks responding there are forced to pull in, do whatever is needed and then back their rigs out when they are finished. This is absurd! But, Mr Feiner wanted this regardless of what was needed. In fact, a similar project endorsed by him is the Shellbourne Assisted Living project where the old Sprain Nursery was located. They too, will be building more than the property and surrounding area can handle, thwarting the effectiveness, efficiency and safety of the emergency services responders. Apparently, the safety of assisted living living residents also means little to Mr Feiner and his Board.

There has also been discussion that the Ardsley Schools District will be overrun with new students. According the a spokesman at The Jefferson, the goal of this project is to attract single and newlywed Millenials, and not families with school age children. In fact, our discussion with them indicated that this is a “starter” home for both of those groups, leading them toward purchasing a home when the do have kids. While no one can guarantee this will be the case, the Jefferson Management based their information and projections on other projects of theirs throughout the country.

You may be wondering why the Town Board would object to this project when it seems to be in the right spot, doesn't negatively impact the area, and in fact improves it, falls in line with the other developments Mr Feiner and his Board readily approved and can add to the tax roles, albeit at a discounted tax rate? Because Ms Juettner is afraid of making her constituents mad and losing votes. But, it’s not just her, it’s also Mr Feiner not wanting to lose any votes from Ardsley. After all, the Villages add an awful lot of votes to their campaigns. Sadly, they’re not doing what’s right for the taxpayers and constituents. Rather, they’re acting in their own best interests.

This project is right for the area and needs to be approved. Ultimately, it will go through and be built. In the meantime, we believe Mr Feiner will try to coerce more from the Jefferson Management than is required for approvals. Don’t believe us? Just look at the disastrous results of the Fortress Bible Discrimination case that Mr Feiner lost in Federal court and was found guilty on seven counts. Come and weigh in this Wednesday night at the Town Board meeting at 7:30PM. Be an active part of the Town. Only then will we see A Better Greenburgh.

Inaction and Incompetence Guarantees More Damage

While the rest of us wait for the next drop of precipitation that will eventually build into the latest flood for our neighborhoods, our Town Board keeps busy by focusing on everything except properly running our Town. They certainly are ignoring real storm and disaster preparation. Countless people throughout the Town have complained to Mr Feiner and his Town Board, to our County Legislators, State leaders and the media about the need for flood mitigation. All of them have ignored these appeals for preparation to help the ever-increasing list of neighborhoods now flooding.

First, Mr Feiner seems to only be interested in flooding if there is a press conference or press release that can get his name in the media, or, if there is a flood and he can be interviewed with the destroyed beachfront property behind him, saying how terrible this is and he will contact every other elected leader to do something. He won’t actually do anything himself except stave off those nagging residents with copies of emails sent to others. Politics: why fix it when we can talk about it?

Second, in a meeting held with several Greenburgh Civic Associations, county Legislator Alfreda Williams stated the County’s Flood Mitigation Committee (we’re sure there’s a more formal name) hasn’t met for almost a year. So while the weather has been conducive to cleaning out the rivers, removing debris, and helping improve the flow of water, nothing has been done. Several residents at that meeting gave numerous ideas to improve the status quo to help mitigate some of the future flooding. In fact, our own Victor Carosi, Greenburgh’s Commissioner of Public Works, is a co-chair of the committee. And, even after he has seen the devastation caused by the flooding, he and others remain impassively disconnected to residents’ plight.

Third, some say it’s the homeowners problem that they bought a home in a flood zone. While this may be true to a miniscule degree for a very few of these homes and businesses, there are many areas that now flood that never flooded before or when residents purchased their homes years ago. In fact, in canvassing different neighborhood residents and discussing water issues with them, most said its only in the last 15 years that they had experienced some water in their basements, crawlspaces or businesses. The common thread has been while nothing has changed to expedite the flow of the two rivers that parallel both sides of the Town, Mr Feiner’s non-stop over-development in our Town has all of these new projects emptying their storm and other drainage into either the Saw Mill River or the Bronx River. With nothing being done to accommodate the runoff water that would have been absorbed into the ground, the surrounding low-lying areas flood. Many are anxious to see what happens to the 9A corridor after the new construction in Eastview is completed.

A study published in Nature Climate Change warned that the annual costs from flooding in the world’s largest coastal cities could grow from about $6 billion to $1 trillion  by 2050. Granted, 2050 may be some time away, but its that kind of thinking and lack of planning that has currently landed us in this morass of finger-pointing and lack of action. Sure, many politicians will say this is going to cost money and take a lot of time. They've been saying that about the 9A corridor for the last 50 years - maybe longer. The current National Flood Insurance Program is $24 billion in debt! This deficit will not be washed away (pun intended) without reform of the system. It’s also a bonafide indicator that increased investment in mitigation efforts prior to an event is imperative before we are hit with the costs of the next disaster which promise to be overwhelming.

True story: One neighborhood is a “A” rated flood zone (worst) neighborhood. A young couple with a young child from the Bronx purchased their first home here. They never knew that Mr Feiner held a press conference in their driveway after Hurricane Irene. They didn’t know he promised the couple living there to have FEMA purchase their home from them so they could leave. They didn’t know Mr Feiner was lying when he told them that. The young couple’s sale went through without much fanfare - although for them it was a pretty exhilarating moment. At the closing, however, they learned that the bank holding the mortgage requires them to have flood insurance. The sellers might have neglected to mention that. Regardless, while their checkbook was out, they wrote a $2,000 check to the bank for flood insurance. Closings are like that. Bring your checkbook, be prepared to empty it on fees and payments that would shame an IRS agent.

The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) underwrites the National Flood Insurance Program. Yes, the Federal government. As mentioned earlier, they are $24 billion in debt. These are the same people who run Social Security, who don’t have enough money to pay retirees; the Veterans Administration, who can’t take care of our heroes; the Post Office, who has its own $8 billion deficit; Medicare and Medicaid, which both do everything not to pay benefits and are rife with corruption; Education, which many believe amounts to indoctrination – or just day care, and many more but you get the point. Back to FEMA. They charge homeowners thousands to pay back hundreds when you place a claim. By the way, there’s a mandatory $5,000 deductible. Government at its best?

We just had elections. Mr Feiner wasn’t running. It doesn't matter - he’ll get re-elected next year. Job performance in Greenburgh doesn’t matter. What does matter is we keep the same people in office so we can get more proclamations, plaques with our names on them and “atta boys” from Mr Feiner and his ilk. Ms Williams is content to coast along for her base salary of $49, 200 and various stipends. And what of Mr Abinanti, handily re-elected as our “environmentally concerned” NYS Assemblyman? He remains AWOL during all of this. Why tackle something he’s impotent to fix? In fact, he used to live in Greenburgh until Mr Feiner started making too many bad decisions and moved to a safer area to distance himself from real issues. We keep electing the same people who do nothing but pander to us.

The young couple who only last year bought their new dream home? Here it is a year later and they now know who Senator Chuck Schumer is. He co-sponsored a bill that increased the cost of flood insurance. You see, after having to pay out claims for Hurricane/Tropical Storms Irene and Sandy, the program went broke. Naturally, the politicians did what they do best: they raised taxes, in the form of flood insurance premiums, but only to the people who get flooded. So they hammer the people suffering the most, again.

And what of our new homeowners formerly of the Bronx and now living in the A-rated flood prone Greenburgh? Their flood insurance went up a whopping $20,000! The Town needs to address the flooding issue they created with over-development, poor planning and developer carte blanche. It may be part of the solution to cause the Federal government to readjust the flood maps and reduce the young couple’s flood premiums. Although it’s not likely because we continue to fail ourselves by electing the same people over and over again and they always seek the latest tragedy for publicity. This guarantees them that publicity. This has to change. Only then might we get A Better Greenburgh.