Town Continues Video Cover-Up!

In our post on Thursday, June 26, 2014, entitled Town Edits-Out Incriminating News From Official Town Board Video Record, we detailed what transpired with the official video recording of the Town Board meeting. During Edgemont resident Robert Bernstein's time at the podium, the former candidate for Supervisor against Mr Feiner shared information about the Toll Brothers high-end development called Ardsley Chase, the known shooting range adjacent to it and donations to Mr Feiner's campaign war chest while Toll Brothers had applications before the Town. To the uninitiated, this is business as usual in the 80th Best Place To Live. To the regulars and developers, its just another day in Gotham.

If you listen carefully to the video on our previous post of Mr Bernstein, what he said in the live meeting was deleted in the officially posted video. On the officially posted Town video you can only hear him say, “...was one of the largest financial con...Toll Brothers application was pending.” The gap in the video was created to remove the reference that Mr Bernstein made about Mr Feiner receiving campaign contributions from Toll Brothers while they had applications before the Town! Faces in the audience showed shock and dismay. Many of those residents were "first-timers" to the Town Board meeting and were unaware of Mr Feiner's unethical behavior. They were stunned as they learned Mr Feiner accepted money from a developer while they had applications pending with the Town.

During his 3-minute time at the microphone, Mr Bernstein actually stated that, “Toll Brothers knew they were building adjacent to a gun range. And, what many might not be aware of is that Toll Brothers was one the largest campaign contributors to Mr Feiner while their application was pending.” Those in attendance heard Mr Bernstein loud and clear. In fact, since most developers working in the Town knew this was acceptable and possibly even encouraged, it got so bad that the Ethics Committee was tasked to address it. Watching the video tape afterwards provided an unsettling realization that our elected leaders could not be trusted. Did "they" doctor the video again? Once might be a mistake, but twice is more than a coincidence.

You may recall the meeting with the Town Board and Theodore Young Community Center Commissioner William Young, where he detailed the TYCC's budgetary needs. During the course of discussion he made a comment about the Lanza Foundation and how the Town would not want to upset the Golden Goose. A day later that fifteen-minute section of the video tape mysteriously disappeared from the official video record of the meeting. How could that be? Upon questioning at the following Town Board meeting, Town Clerk Judith Beville said they would investigate what might have happened. The final excuse offered was that an intern deleted that section of the video. That lie was provided as they could not, or would not, disclose the real cause for the deleted section. The video is streamed over the internet live and during the live stream, the signal is sent/picked up by SwagIt, the video company that segments the video and supplies it online for the Town. An intern would be unable to alter the streaming video SwagIt receives.

Much speculation was made at that time as to what might have happened. Could the Town videographer, George Malone, have made the change? No, he was out of town on vacation. Could it have been the intern? Doubtful, as they cannot edit the streaming video that goes to SwagIt. Could Judith Beville, who is the overseer and manager of the video department have made the changes? Possibly, but no one was able to confirm her knowledge of the software used by the video department. Ultimately, something happened to cause Mr Carter's portion of the official video recording of the meeting to be deleted and now Mr Bernstein's portion has been deleted. The Town contacted SwagIt who was able to supply the Town a corrected version for the Bill Carter incident. Will they be able to do the same thing again and replace Mr Bernstein's deleted comments? As of this posting, the deleted official Town video record of the meeting is still missing from the Town's website. Why?

There are many critics of the Town. In fact, the G10 are suspect of many of Mr Feiner and his Town Board's actions based on their past history of "skirting" the fine line between right and wrong. They have also blatantly fallen on the wrong side of many issues. The Fortress Bible Church decision is one that originates from 2007 and is costing Unincorporated Greenburgh $6.5M - money we simply don't have. How much money has the Town lost through the actions, inactions and questionable actions of this group of elected officials? Its time for a change. It's time to get elected officials willing to clearly and steadfastly act on behalf of the taxpayers first and everyone else second. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Town Edits-Out Incriminating News From Official Town Board Video Record

The schedule had been changed from the traditional Wednesday night Town Board meeting to Monday night. Yet, this Town Board meeting was uncharacteristically filled with residents from Unincorporated Greenburgh. In fact, the Town Board, fearing a loss of votes from the same residents, decided to change the agenda and jump right into the 3-minute public comment portion to placate them. ABG staffers had watched the meeting online while it was underway as well as conferred with attendees. Imagine our surprise when we went to the Town website to review the video – which is the official record of the Town’s meeting – only to find it had been altered and then removed! Why? Read on.

The first portion of the meeting was solely outraged resident after outraged resident complaining about a shooting range next to the new Toll Brothers’ Ardsley Chase development, which consists of about two dozen million dollar-plus new homes. In fact, there is a police investigation currently underway because a resident was apparently “hit” by a stray bullet fragment that is alleged to have originated from the firing range. The police investigation is underway and should provide all of the facts.

Frankly, as lifelong residents, no one in the ABG offices were even aware that there was a shooting range in Westchester beyond the Yonkers shooting range on McLean Avenue and at the Westchester County Police facility in Hawthorne. Ironically, one shooting range that has existed for years was mentioned under the chapel at Archbishop Stepinac HS. It has been dormant for years.

These residents were at the Town Board meeting to complain that this shooting range, supposedly a mile away, according to the Toll Brothers prospectus, was is in fact much closer. Back before the project was moving forward at full steam, Toll Brothers illegally removed the forest of poplar trees on their site for their project. They were fined, subsequently paid the fine, and then sold the same trees to a lumber mill for a significant profit, much more than the fines cost them. Those trees, along with other forest and shrubbery, provided a natural barrier between the shooting range and the rest of the then-uninterested world. Consolidated Edison, the property owner and landlord of the shooting range, also removed many trees in the area from their property. This reduced the sound and protective barrier that had existed for years.

During the Town Board Public Comment session, after many of the residents had spoken, former Town Supervisor candidate Robert Bernstein took to the podium. During his 3-minute time at the microphone, he stated that, “Toll Brothers knew they were building adjacent to a gun range. And, what many might not be aware of is that Toll Brothers was one the largest campaign contributors to Mr Feiner while their application was pending.” If you listen to the video below of Mr Bernstein, what he said in the live meeting was changed when he says, “...was one of the largest financial con...Toll Brothers application was pending.” The gap in the video was altered to remove the reference that Mr Bernstein made about Mr Feiner receiving campaign contributions from Toll Brothers while having applications before the Town!

Some might consider Mr Feiner’s financial acceptance of money from a developer to be a bribe or at the very least an unethical way to purchase approvals for various requests for their multi-million dollar development. They would be considered wrong, because this is Greenburgh, and its just part of “doing business” in our Town. Most developers know this. Most residents do not. Mr Feiner taking Toll Brother money while their application was pending is a matter of public record. Ironically, this is not the first time the Town’s public record has been altered for to cover up bad information. A fifteen-minute section of video with Theodore Young Community Center leader Bill Carter was removed and later restored after the G10 went on the offensive with the Town.

Mr Feiner accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Toll Brothers when the developer sought approval to build ttwo dozen luxury homes in what is now called Ardsley Chase. Its a subdivision next door to a live outdoor shooting range on Ardsley Road. Sadly, Mr Feiner pandered to this crowd and told him he would contact everyone ELSE and do everything he could to close or at least regulate this gun range, which has been here for about 41 years. He has just done about everything he will do for them. And, Toll Brothers got their approvals, Mr Feiner got his contributions for his campaign fund and the text of what Mr Bernstein said has not seen the light of day.

It’s a long time overdue for this Town Board and Supervisor to go. Only then will we get A Better Greenburgh.

Commercial Development Will Impact Our Residential Neighborhood

An Open Letter to the Greenburgh Taxpayers:

Dear Neighbors,

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

This massive development will destroy the character of our neighborhood.

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

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

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

The Proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must stop this now!!

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

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

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

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

Dorrine Livson
President
Worthington-Woodlands Civic Association

We Knew He Knew

Mr. Feiner filed lawsuit for this 2013 election cycle attempting to remove his only challenger from the ballot, Mr. Robert “Bob” Bernstein. Mr Feiner apparently forgot what he already knew. At the official Democratic nominating meeting held at no charge to the Democratic Party, yes for free, at Greenburgh Town Hall, Mr Feiner didn’t receive the Democratic endorsement. Mr Bernstein, on the other hand, received a landslide majority of the vote from the representatives maneuvering their weighted votes. Now forced into a primary competition against Mr Bernstein, Mr Feiner made a statement, lying again to the public. He said he welcomed competition and this was democracy in action and so on. The reality is far different than his lie would appear.

Based on legal coaching from fellow-attorney and NY State Assemblyman Thomas Abinanti, Mr Feiner sued to stop Mr Bernstein from running as a candidate against him. Abinanti even testified on behalf of Mr Feiner. You may wonder why Abinanti would intercede of behalf of his longtime friend? ABG believes this is payback for Mr Feiner’s effort to halt the Fortress Bible Church from building a new church and school on property literally in Abinanti’s former backyard. Once Mr Feiner lost that case in court, Mr Abinanti moved to Tarrytown. They (Abinanti/Feiner) staked their claim that Mr Bernstein must be removed from the ballot on the grounds of fraud for using the name “Bob” on his ballot petitions. The issue of Mr Feiner contesting Mr Bernstein’s petitions caused many who don’t follow Mr Feiner’s crafty hijinks to scratch their heads wondering why he was doing this? The G10 knew why. The Feiner campaign knew why. Abinanti knew why. Feiner repeatedly said he welcomed the competition and it was democracy at work. The press ignored asking any questions, but especially the tough questions, and simply printed Mr Feiner’s prepared statement that he was seeking to block Mr Bernstein’s petition signatures using the courts based on fraud. Given Mr Feiner’s past court experiences, you would think he might have the common sense to stay away from the courts. He also challenged the petition ballot signatures collected by a group of nuns as fraudulent! Sadly, this pathetic behavior is what Mr Feiner has lowered himself to and even sadder is that this is the best the electorate gets because they don’t pay attention to details and succumb to “headline reading” for information.

Doing a modicum of research, we found this post from Mr Feiner’s blog from March 2013. We expect he won’t respond but if he would, it could be something to the effect of “I didn’t write that.” (nor, would he know who did). Or, “I don’t remember writing that.” Or, “Someone else wrote that for me but that’s not what I said.” Regardless, here’s a statement that he did say and posted (yellow highlight by ABG):

Post from Paul Feiner’s Blog:

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2013

Bob Bernstein's comments on the Edgemont Community Council page are false, fiction, inaccurate

The ECC page has been used by Bob Bernstein to criticize me. That's democracy and freedom of speech. I have no objections to that.

However-- in recent months much of what Bernstein says is totally inaccurate. Fiction. Make believe. I sent the following to Bob and the head of ECC a short time ago. 

A reader emailed us a statement that apparently Mr Feiner made to Mr Geoff Loftus, the Edgemont Community Council’s current President, and was posted on the Town website by Mr Feiner (there are more references if you look):

From: Paul Feiner

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:10 PM

To: Geoff Loftus; Town Board

Cc: Bob Bernstein; (Note: Editor has removed other names)

Subject: more distortions and fiction in last nights ECC post about me

Bob Bernstein, in last nights post about WESTHELP, indicated that I put up barbed wires at the WESTHELP facility.

APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSES TAXTER RIDGE CASE--FINNERAN LAW UPHELD

Release Date: February 19, 2008

Yesterday the Appellate Division reversed the Taxter Ridge case which Bob Bernstein brought. The court upheld the Finneran Law and made it very clear that parks and recreation facilities are the obligations of the unincorporated area. We are bound by the decision. 
I would have been satisfied with any decision that the court made. I thought that it was important and fair that everyone have their day in court, and since the villages weren’t included in the complaint I thought that they had the right to have an appeal in which they could take part. 
We now have some work to do to repair some of the problems that the case has brought about, and we will have better communications between the town and the villages to make that happen. With the new spirit on the Town Board, and the goodwill of our residents, I know that we can do this. 
PAUL FEINER 

Clearly, Mr Feiner, a non-practicing attorney, knew of Mr Bernstein as “Bob”. Mr Feiner lost his case in court on a technicality and cost Greenburgh taxpayers money once again that needn’t have been spent (wasted). Apparently the old axiom, practice makes perfect is apropos in this case. Mr Feiner named others besides Mr Bernstein in the action but they were not asked to appear in court for the hearing/trial and were not present. Subsequently, the case was dismissed because of it. We understand Mr Abinanti is a practicing attorney, but apparently just not in election law.

As an aside, State election law allows nicknames like “Bob” and a formal opinion of the state board of elections actually states using the name “Bob” for “Robert” is perfectly acceptable. ABG is fairly sure Mr Feiner and Mr Abinanti knew this. But what is more disturbing is that in every election he is opposed, Mr Feiner sues his opponent to get their signatures disqualified and ultimately thrown off the ballot, giving him a free ride back into power. Mr Feiner never does the dirty work himself, rather he has someone else do it. In the previous election, he had Councilman Morgan’s daughter using her married name, challenge former Councilwoman Sonya Brown’s petition signatures and got her removed from the ballot. No overt or visible link back to Morgan or Feiner.

To tell the public that he welcomes competition, that this is democracy at it’s best and he’s happy that someone is running against him makes for a great quote or sound-byte with the media. The downside is that it’s simply another lie that he gets away with. He knew Mr Bernstein was known as Bob but even if he hadn’t, it is disingenuous to say you think the competition is great and then sue to block an opponent. They say that all is fair in love and war. There is no love in this campaign and it may turn into a war. But hopefully civility, class and decorum will prevail. We deserve the truth from our leaders and better from all of our representatives. We deserve a Better Greenburgh. 

Collusive Tendering or Government Fraud?

Several Town Board meetings ago, a desperate Mr Feiner went on yet another attack against Town residents accusing them of bid-rigging regarding the former WestHelp Property and the Board-sanctioned MRH “deal”. Using his “Feiner Deflection Mode” persona, he began his statement and almost at once realized he could capitalize on his own dishonesty and deflect away from he and his Board, projecting the problem onto the public. Immediately after he accused everyone of bid rigging, Councilman Francis Sheehan could momentarily be seen reacting by rolling his eyes. Seconds later, the Board was staring down at the dais countertop, probably thinking, “Oh crap! He’s at it again.” There is no shortage of amazing statements that can eminate from our savant Supervisor. Since Mr Sheehan and Ms Juettner are running for Town Council in the upcoming election, neither offered any form of bail out assistance, trying to remain as distant as possible without snapping the cord from Mr Feiner’s campaign funding checkbook.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international agency that has created a document entitled Guidelines For Fighting Bid Rigging in Public Procurement.
This document contains much information as to the bid-rigging, also know as Collusive Tendering. They make this statement: “Bid-rigging conspiracies can take many forms, all of which impede the efforts of purchasers - frequently national and local governments - to obtain goods and services at the lowest possible price. Often, competitors agree in advance who will submit the winning bid on a contract to be awarded through a competitive bidding process. A common objective of a bid-rigging conspiracy is to increase the amount of the winning bid and thus the amount that the winning bidders will gain.”

What is interesting throughout the document is the constant mention of collusion between bidders and how to recognize it and what safeguards should be in place to ensure bid-rigging is not happening on a particular project. What is lacking, or more directly not discussed, is the collusion between a bidder and an elected official and what they may be doing outside of the bid process. 

Case Example #1:

We have an a piece of commercial property a community acquired through foreclosure. Let’s also say that the community was required by law to sell the piece of property. And, the community could sell the property as a direct, private sale or an RFP. So far so good, but lets examine the circumstances and see whether they lead to bid rigging or not?

Circumstances:

Before the process even begins, an already proven guilty corrupt political leader has secret meetings with a prospective purchaser of a piece of commercial property. These meetings find arrangements being made without the knowledge of colleagues that work hand-in-hand and in constant agreement with this corrupt politician. He then tries to create an illegal lease deal for his conspirator. When that is stopped, he offers a sale. When a higher offer is tendered, he refuses it and continues to offer the lower bidder the property.

Example #2:

A private resident has a .7 acre piece of property he has put up for sale. There are no takers. Being industrious, he reaches out to his political representatives about how he can sell the property and what would be the best avenue to approach. It’s suggested he use state, county and local buzzwords to help entice the government to purchase it. He’s told to use buzzwords such as homeless, affordable housing, municipal workers and the always reliable firefighters, police and teachers. 

Circumstances:

Before the process even begins, an already proven guilty corrupt political leader has secret meetings with a prospective purchaser of a small piece of combined commercial/residential property at the entrance of s small, lower income neighborhood. It is predetermined by the already proven guilty corrupt political leader that another 7-story affordable housing apartment in an already saturated area would be acceptable. When the neighborhood complains, he tells them he already green-lighted this project and while the affordable management company will run it, he neglects to tell them they will only be managing it for four years. At that point it will get “sold” to one of their for-profit subsidiaries and no longer be restricted to low income residents. As mounting resistance increases, he continues to lie to the neighborhood saying it cannot be changed. Legal challenges go unheeded and the neighborhood loses. 

Example #3:

Time is wearing on and an already proven guilty corrupt political leader is nervous about his re-election chances. He decides he needs to acquire more votes previously unachievable based on money he illegally funneled to a alleged corrupt school board, whose former members are now sitting politicians. To get these votes, he needs the higher level politicians to support his scheme. They are all too willing.

Circumstances:

Two years leading up to an election, an already proven guilty corrupt political leader decides on his own to abandon the community’s affordable housing resource that was gifted to the community from a superior agency, which allows them to maintain and collect rent from for many years with little or no effort. As a way to gain votes from that community, he begins working with other higher level politicians and informs them of his plans (or maybe not). The already proven guilty corrupt political leader begins a misinformation campaign to turn the property over to a school for handicapped individuals, stating that this is the only property that can work for them – as long as it is destroyed. The already proven guilty corrupt political leader decides to award the bid to a start-up company who falsified bid submission documents to receive the bid. The already proven guilty corrupt political leader adamantly insists the bid go to this company.

Example #4:

A developer purchases a small piece of residential property but knows he can get the already proven guilty corrupt political leader to spot-zone it to what they want based on their private meetings. Oversized and unwanted by the neighborhood, the plan gets immediate and unrestricted municipal approval.

Circumstances:

Before the process even begins, an already proven guilty corrupt political leader has secret meetings with a prospective purchaser of a small piece of property in the middle of a small residential neighborhood for the purpose of building their proposed assisted living housing. The neighborhood objects to the oversized structure on an undersized plot. The already proven guilty corrupt political leader states he is in favor of this oversized proposal, to which the neighborhood again objects. As a minor concession, the developer is allowed to resize the footprint of the structure and increase the height to not lose any billable apartments. The already proven guilty corrupt political leader has the developer’s attorney’s craft a zoning rule change that over-benefits the developer. The Town then adopts as a Town-wide zoning change, allowing unrestricted and oversized assisted living housing in every neighborhood.

Would these constitute bid-rigging? In the context of the The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is hard to say. However, there are several signs that indicate bid rigging that may be applicable throughout these few (and there are more) examples. Regular meetings between the bidders and the recipient take place, the same suppliers are the repeated bidders (and awardees), regular suppliers fail to bid, suppliers withdraw from the bidding process, spoken or written references to the bids, suppliers meet privately with parties offering the bids, bids are accepted from companies incapable of successfully executing the contract, a “last minute” bid is “found” or submitted after the other bids have been opened.

Is this bid rigging? Or is merely accusing residents who are not a part of the process and are wholly reliant on the information supplied from the community and it’s leaders, enough to constitute bid rigging? ABG is insulted that Mr Feiner would even allude to, let alone accuse residents of bid rigging given his history. Clearly, there is bid rigging taking place in our Town. Mr Feiner, however seems to have it backwards.

Feiner’s Bid-Rigging Finale Prevails

In a surprising announcement late on Friday afternoon when most residents are leaving work, thinking of their weekend plans, our Town Supervisor quietly slipped the announcement out through his blog that he and his Town Board awarded the sale of 715 Dobbs Ferry Road, the former Frank’s Nursery property to the “paper” corporation, GameOn 365, for $3M! No details of the contract were available as of this posting. Not-so-stunning was the amount of time Mr Feiner had to keep the opponents at bay while GameOn 365 struggled to find financing through outside investors. He has been stalling the sale of the property for over two years now, assisting with GameOn 365’s search for investors by contriving an illegal referendum to justify his illegal actions.

ABG has predicted all along that Mr. Feiner and his Board would disregard the more lucrative offer from the established and profitable House of Sports’ parent company, Elm Street Sports, or any others for that matter, and pretend to show interest in all offers and ultimately, painstakingly, and hesitantly accept the “best offer for the Town in his estimation” from GameOn 365. We cannot prove collusion but can certainly acknowledge facts about this transaction don’t sit well with most people. ABG believes this warrants an A.G. investigation but knows that probably won’t happen.

Months before the Town acquired the former Frank’s Nursery property through foreclosure, representatives from GameOn 365 met with Mr. Feiner regarding the property. Unbeknownst to most residents and Town employees, Mr. Feiner and crew continued to craft a deal with them. Having apparently promised the property to GameOn 365, Mr Feiner struggled to find a way to make this deal happen quickly and without much resistance. He offered to lease the property to GameOn 365 in what can only be described as a major sweetheart deal.

The original offer from GameOn 365 was a promised $5M to the Town over 15 years. Thinking residents are clueless, Mr. Feiner issued press release after press release touting the deal. The press was negligent in doing their duty and didn’t scrutinize the legality of what Mr. Feiner was proposing. But a community backed lawsuit put a stop to the lease. What to do? GameOn 365 was nervous – their too-good-to-be-true deal with Mr. Feiner was vaporizing before them. Mr Feiner, a shrewd and clever non-practicing lawyer finally got the answer from the lawsuit itself. The Town is required to sell any property acquired through foreclosure and it could be a private sale without an RFP. He would do just that.

Yet, Elm Street Sports still wanted in. They had the cash in hand and could make the purchase immediately as they are already operating a successful sports facility in Ardsley. GameOn 365 is a couple of stockbrokers with little or no cash at all. To consummate this sale quickly, Mr Feiner would need to step up his game (no pun intended) to keep them out. Elm Street Sports offered $3.5M and full coverage for remediation of the site. There were no strings attached with their offer. They only asked what would be required of them? Mr Feiner never responded to their queries knowing he never had any intention of selling to them. The deal with GameOn 365, found them offering to put up a percentage of the down payment and claimed to pay for some remediation with a total sale price of $1.2M that included rent reimbursements from the Town as well as the option to terminate the deal at any time. After residents hounded Mr Feiner that he was giving the highly valued property away for “a song”, Mr Feiner had an assessor come and look at the property for a valuation. The assessor returned an estimated value at, wait for it, $1.2M! Then, the Town put that same assessor on retainer for the Town!

Mr. Feiner’s latest accusations toward concerned residents at the last Town Board meeting were that they were bid-rigging. Now, Mr. Feiner announced a lease for the property between the Town and GameOn 365 without ever doing any real “due diligence” because he knew he was always going to give GameOn 365 the property. In the interim, Elm Street Sports doubled the original GameOn 365 sale price offer to $3.5M. Everyone spoke clearly and with conviction and said take the highest offer. Mr Sheehan insisted he didn’t believe the Elm Street Sports offer was sincere. One of the Elm Street Sports representatives said at a Town Board meeting, “When it comes to money, especially millions of dollars, I am always sincere.” Too bad our Town Board isn’t.

The Town Board has the ability to make this sale whether the public endorses it or not. The public asked for an RFP but was ignored. The public asked for answers and got none. The devil is always in the details and while no details were exposed for this new deal with GameOn 365, we’ll keep you posted as this story promises more dark roads ahead.