Monday, October 15, 2012

tax increases in Stuyvesant

New to the blog? Want the biggest story? Now, on to today's news. Here is a story in the Register Star. It says:
The tentative budget calls for the town to spend $100,900 of an unexpended fund balance to soak up expenses. Knott said that would leave about $80,000 in that fund balance.
That doesn't seem possible. Let's go to the next part:
Combined contractual fees for the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board totaling $49,000 were reduced to a total of $2,000 in the preliminary 2013 budget. Knott said that the 2012 contractual fees “were in anticipation of some steep attorney fees.”
Wait. The 2011 budget was written in November 2011. At that time, the town had spent $100,000 on Whiteman Osterman and Hanna to put me in jail on false charges and to close my business down on false charges. Although they spent $100,000 without me filing any suit, the budget only showed $40,000 spent, $60,000 was simply not listed.

They knew they would have to pay Whiteman Osterman and Hanna to defend the action of the ZBA on September 27, 2011, so they allocated $40,000 more for 2012. In short, in 2011 and 2012, they budgeted $80,000 but ended up spending $200,000. And, they achieved nothing at all for all that money.

How did the reserve fund get back to $200,000 when they left $120,000 out of the budget?

Hext the article says:
Four out of five lawsuits brought against the town by Glencadia Dog Camp Owner Will Pflaum were decided during 2012.
Is the implication of this statement that the suits caused the attorney fees? Can't be true. In federal court, the town has insurance, so there were no expenses. The fees to Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna were spent BEFORE any suit was filed. What about the others, including the one on appeal about Ron Knott?

One suit claimed that ZBA Secretary Shirley Narzynski is operating an auto service facility in an agricultural zone. The town did not need to spend any money on that suit, as they could have deferred to the personal attorney for the Narzynskis. The town paid for her lawyer.

One suit claimed that Ron Knott is operating a heating and cooling facility without a permit. The town did not need to spend any money on that suit, as they could have deferred to the personal attorney for Knott. The taxpayer paid for Knott's personal attorney.

One suit was filed to get documents through FOIL. If the town had supplied the documents through FOIL, I wouldn't have had to sue. But the town learned nothing and they are STILL not giving out documents when requested. Guess what the next step is if your FOILs are denied?

After all this, the town LEARNED NOTHING. The 21st hearing on me is scheduled for October 23, 2012, a ZBA hearing for the same old stupid dog barking charge that no one complained about.

Why didn't Ron Knott pay for his own attorney? That would have saved a lot of money. I had to pay for my own attorney. Here is the appeal of the issue. Here is a quote:
To wit, the record demonstrates that the contract between Knott and special counsel William J. Better to defend the current use without permit or public hearing constitutes a violation of New York General Municipal Law § 805(1)(c). The purpose of this contract was to defend Knott’s private 8 business interest from the imposition of a routine public hearing, as mandated by law, a contract that benefits Knott Industries exclusively with no pretense of a public interest. Knott himself met with Better prior to hiring Better. Knott voted to hire Better. Knot signed the contract and approved Better’s invoices. Better served as ZBA attorney while also representing Knott in Supreme Court, all paid by the taxpayer. 
Here is the contract. That contract violates New York General Municipal Law § 805(1)(c). It's a misdemeanor, but a crime. So, the suit argues, if you read it, that Ron Knott should have a permit for his business to store chemicals and fuels and that he should pay for his own lawyer and not get free legal services from the taxpayer.

It's on appeal. Another FOIL lawsuit is certainly possible based on this letter.

In Stuyvesant, rumors in private conversations is the main way most people get their information, not in open discussion. In an open discussion we can agree on the facts that no one disputes and then figure out what the facts mean openly and frankly.

If people whisper in each other's ears when the other guy is not there to say, "Not true!" then you cannot move forward having established the facts.

Facts:

1. This thing started by the town coming after me. The town started it.
The town of Stuyvesant revoked my permit and tried to close my business down to impoverish my family and tried twice to lock me up on false charges in 2010 and 2011. I had no opportunity to present evidence on the basis of no violation in August 2010 before the town revoked my permit. The charges in criminal court were false and the town violated Public Officer's Law hiring a special prosecutor. 
2. The dog barking charge isn't true and no one within 1500 feet of the barn has complained and three have written letters saying as much. All my near neighbors agree with me.
The charge of dog barking defies the laws of physics and no town resident complained about dog barking in any way prior to the zoning officer revoking my permit. No complaint on record prior to revoking the permit. No complaints from any near neighbors, only from people who live very far away who complained months after the zoning guy already revoked the permit. 
3. The town spent $200,000 on a dog barking charge that does not involve anyone alleging the barking was loud.
They know the barking is not loud at more than 1000 feet. So, they spent all this money on a noise violation that involves quiet noise. Noise laws are for LOUD noises. 
4. The zoning officer put my house under surveillance 25 times before dawn in July 2010. There has been vandalism and threats directed against me, some of it by town officials.

5. Everything I alleged in court is true.
I filed a lawsuit arguing that the zoning board secretary is violating zoning law. She is violating the law. I filed a suit arguing the supervisor is violation zoning law. He is violating zoning law. I filed a suit arguing they did not give me documents requested through FOIL. They had not given me the documents requested through FOIL. I filed a suit because the town violated Public Officer's Law. They did violate Public Officer's Law. I filed a suit because the town assessor engages in assessment fraud. He does engage in fraud. I filed suit because the town attorney stole $10,000. He did steal $10,0000. I filed suit because the town attorney extorted $437.50 from me. He did extort money from me. 
I would like to establish these facts as a baseline.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment