political vandalism in Stuyvesant

Here is the Register Star article on the legalistic portion of this vendetta. Here is the story on the vandalism. When the law isn't working for them as a weapon, they grab a spray paint can. Same guys in both cases. Different methods.

Both stories fail to mention this, which I guess is fine.

On our local Yahoo forum, Peter Donahoe said, "Signs defaced by vandalous fascists" that "many of the White on Red dog silhouette signs have been defaced in the last day.. well just wait until you get pushed around by bullies and look for help from someone..."

Lee Jamison noted, "Stuyvesant Vernacular Lawn Art collections were defaced in a massive town-wide attack this past Monday night!"

Michelle Richardson asked, "We usually blame "kids" with too much free time on their hands in late October. That one or more alleged "adults" with too much free time on their hands - which I don't doubt is the case here - took the time to drive around and paint on signs...well, it's Stuyvesant, so we're not really surprised, are we?"

Christian Sweningsen said, "I'm surprised - and I'll be surprised when the swastikas appear, too."

Michelle Richardson responded, "Vandalism has been ongoing. There are dog signs in the creek by the bridge, someone took the VFW sign letters to spell messages, and other activity in the West Ghent Rd area. I imagine any noise-sensitive neighbors that may have been sitting at home, might have noticed the extra traffic breaking the silence of hamlet/hamlet extension zoning."

Stuyvesant Falls report: Mine was defaced. Also, Carol and David. Pam's was stolen. Teresa's was defaced. Krishna's was stolen. Her neighbor's was stolen (forgot their names). Robert's was defaced (dome house). Kate's was not damaged. Phyllis's (post office) was not damaged. The one next to Phyllis by the post office disappeared (forgot the names, sorry). Chris's was stolen. Eva's was stolen (his neighbor), mother of Christine. The one on the house next to Red Oak farm was defaced. Jim's was stolen on Route 9. Peter's? Stolen, route 9?

Stuyvesant: Lee's defaced, Andrew's stolen way back? new one not touched, Ned's?, Mike's defaced, his neighbor's (Chris?), defaced, Frank's stolen...

Look at this video to see the official government response to this and other acts of vandalism:

I painted those myself, with my kids. They mean something to me. Thank you to everyone who put them up. 

Who did it? 

fence = structure

The latest silly argument against me is that my permit allows me to run a business in an accessory structure but since the dogs go outside to the yard, they are not "within" the structure.

But not according to town zoning ordinance (supposedly the law we are talking about here) from page 12 of the zoning ordinance:

Structures – Anything constructed on or under the ground or upon another structure of building. Among other things, structures include buildings, mobile homes, walls, fences over four (4) feet in height, billboards and signs.

A fence is specifically designated to be a structure. Mine is over 4 feet.

The dogs are behind a fence. They are within a structure as defined by Stuyvesant Town Zoning ordinance.

Not loud. Within the structure. No evidence of any problem with waste. Farm insurance. No complaints to dog control officer of dogs running away. Not an issue that the barn and house are on separate lots. Anything else? Other than you don't like my music or my blog?

hearing 13: stalemate, public safety, community and the law secondary to other concerns

Can anyone tell me what it is that I am supposed to have done wrong? I mean, what I'm accused of having done wrong?

To review quickly, the town of Stuyvesant issued me a permit to run a dog boarding facility. The zoning officer revoked the permit a few months later on the grounds that my facility produced too much noise. He supplied no evidence. The noise was supposedly from dog barking, and I had a permit to operate a kennel-like facility. Over the next year, I have been to 13 hearings in town hall about this issue, including criminal court, planning and zoning. I have done a sound test by an international acoustics firm that was affirmed by the editor of the leading peer review architectural acoustics journal in the world and two other PhD acoustical engineers with long track records of peer reviewed publication. This test showed that the charge of "loud" defies the laws of physics as measured and calculated.

I appealed an issue of noise but the board decided to look into any other issue that they might be able to use against me. They moved the goal post.

Tonight they finally voted on something.

The board was unable to reach a majority vote. They need 4 out of 7 votes but only 5 were there to vote, so any resolution would have had to be 4 to 1 to carry.

The first resolution, proposed by William Vick, chair, was to re-classify my business as commercial. He made the silly fence argument. He mentioned that my barn and house are on separate lots, only because of a planning board mistake which I filed to rectify and the planning board refused to ratify. So, yes, on two lots. Is that so bad? Fence. Is that bad?

We argue that the zoning board does not have the authority to do this, overrule the planning board's previous designation of class 2 home occupation permit. Also, this is moving the goal post. I appealed a dog barking issue. If you take some other action for some other reason, you are not hearing my appeal. The zoning board of appeals exists to prevent oppressive use of zoning not to engage in oppressive use of zoning.

The motion got 3 votes: Margaret Pino, Jeff Jensen, and William Bill Vick. Kent Keller and Amy Abbati voted no. 3 to 2.

The next motion was suggested by Amy Abbati. She offered that as town law says that the zoning officer "shall" issue a notice to the potential violator to appear in town court, and as Gerry Ennis didn't do that, that his notice of revocation is void. This is in fact why we appealed.

This resolution went down: Kent Keller, yes, Amy Abatti, yes, Margaret Pino, Jeff Jensen, and William Bill Vick, no. 2 to 3.

The next resolution was about noise, introduced by Kent Keller, to rule that Gerry Ennis did not establish that I produced unusual noise is excess of a normal residence. Kent Keller, yes, Amy Abatti, yes, Jeff Jensen, yes and William Bill Vick, no, Margaret Pino, no. 3 to 2.

William Vick was here during the sound test Sunday and knows for a fact that there is no unusual noise in excess of that produced by a normal residence. But he voted no anyway.

Margaret Pino said that even if the noise was not loud, if people say its annoying, that's good enough for her. Not good enough for the law, but she didn't care and David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna was comfortable with board members members voting on whims and prejudices and did not bother to cite the law.

Our side was not given an opportunity to present evidence. I was not allowed to show that there are no complaints that do not also contain false statements. I was not allowed to show the threats leveled against me and my family by the same people who are complaining. I was not allowed to discuss the relevant town law on zoning issues. I have not been given time to show that the complaints are malicious. I have never been given a chance to present my full case.

I was not allowed to discuss the kinds of zoning in town and why I have the right kind. No one has presented any evidence that there is any impact of my business on the community at all. Some of the board ignored the fact the supporters out number complainers in the neighborhood 4 to 1.

The Register Star called after the hearing but it was late. He didn't call back in the morning. Just as well.

Audio and video to come.

This is old:

third sound test

On February 18, 2011 I did a sound test. I invited all the board members to come and no one indicated they wanted to come, so I did the test anyway. I was going to do the test on Saturday if some board members wanted to come.

In November 2010, I invited the whole town to come to an open house and a couple of planning board and zoning board members came.

On April 16, 2010, I hired an international acoustical engineering and architecture firm to do a professional sound test.

On August 7, 2011 I invited the whole town to come to the dog barn again. Second open house.

Today, 3 members of the zoning board and 2 lawyers joined my family and employee Amy doing another sound test.

Please note the phone calls at the ends of each video.

Here is next to the barn:

Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.

Here is down by the end of the road:

Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.

Are we done yet?

August 21, 2011 at Glencadia Dog Camp from glencadia on Vimeo.

James Madison and a dumb dog barking complaint?

When I drive to NYC with a bunch of dogs, I listen to lectures, part of the time. I was listening to this excellent course on the US Constitution, particularly interested in lecture 7 on James Madison in the Federalist Papers.

I remember telling our town board that section 10 of the 2010 dog law was unconstitutional because it allowed for removal of a dog from someone's property without a warrant, violating the 4th amendment. Town attorney Tal Rappleyea rolled his eyes and explained it was just a little law in a small town and they aren't really going to go around grabbing people's dogs. Still, I said, it's unconstitutional and you should get rid of that section. They didn't.

Its small, its not a big deal, don't go bringing up the constitution, that's for big stuff and this is too small. Please don't drag James Madison into a petty little dispute. That's the kind of stuff I hear.

But James Madison is relevant. I think the big and small follow some of the same patterns. Listening to what Madison said in the 18th century, I was floored by how prescient he was, how exactly right he was about human nature and how, broadly, to design a government that accounts for human nature in such a way as to allow people to live together in community.

James Madison was pretty negative about human nature. Living before Hilter, before Stalin, before Napoleon, he nevertheless saw, from a careful examination of what was then known about ancient Greece and Rome and Renaissance Italy, how carefully a Republic must be built. His main concern was the tyranny of the majority, demagoguery, and the mob.

A successful Republic was a rare thing in 1790 and even today most people on earth do not live in stable, functioning Republics. I think we in the US do, more or less, live in one, although we have some huge, massive, staggering, constitutional and structural problems that are fundamental and our situation is far from ideal.

Madison saw human nature much better than did Plato, for example. Madison and the federalists studied ancient politics and noticed that although these Republics lasted for centuries and produced many geniuses, they were generally violent, chaotic messes and eventually an Emperor had to step in. They didn't want that to happen here.

The Federalist papers, Plato's Republic, Thucydides are all about the same thing.

Since he and his colleagues wrote the constitution without ever mentioning women in any way and only mentioning blacks as "persons who owe labor" you might see Madison's dislike of direct democracy as suspect, really an elite dislike of the masses. He just ignored the majority of the population!

But he was talking about a system, passion, and human nature. The system works the same when you expand the membership. I think he hit the nail on the head in terms of how the system has to work to avoid a "faction" being a majority and oppressing the other "factions."

Some of the stuff they did in 1790 to avoid the tyranny of the majority is plainly anti-democratic and I don't like it. I don't like the Supreme Court gutting the 13, 14 and 15th amendments in the 1880s and 1890s or getting in FDR's way in the 1930s or installing Bush in 2000 when Florida has jurisdiction. I could go on.

All in all, though, I see why America is, if we stick with Madison and his institutions, unlikely to be ruled by Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin. They were both elected by majorities. Yet Russia and Venezuela are not democratic.

Do I need to draw all the parallels and implications for this little town? Majority rule is one aspect of democracy. Any attempt to create a homogenous or organic community where everything is perfect and everyone gets along and there are no conflicts is a recipe for tyranny. Conflict and factionalism are endemic and natural to humans and the system must allow for human nature to flourish as it is, not as we wish it were.

Don't pine for a condition of perfect unity. Don't assume majority rule is sufficient for a stable democracy. Multiple layers of government are necessary to avoid faction rule. Those are the links between James Madison and this petty dispute in Stuyvesant.

August 19 at Glencadia Dog Camp from glencadia on Vimeo.

another letter to the zba

Here are all the letters written since the last zoning hearing. I cited some of these before in this post.

This is a letter of support for will Will Pflaum and the operation of his business that not only provides a service to dog owners and jobs for area residents, but is also a source of income and support to a family in our community. Come on, folks, we are a community. What is happening in this case is a travesty. It borders on being un-American...

...Will has given a great deal of thought and spent not a little bit of money on designing and locating the facility in such a way as to be appropriate for both their canine boarders and their neighbors.

What is happening here -- the attempt to close down a family run business -- is just plain wrong. Here is family that left the city to raise their children in a rural area, to teach them about what is real and important, about nature and farming and, yes, community. What a lesson for those children, to see their parents unfairly judged and harangued.

We are aware that will has had to spend a great deal of money to prove his case, money could have been better spent for his children's education among other things. We believe his case has been made and proven: it is strongn and is unassailable. Still the town of Stuyvesant continues to throw money at a dead horse. Why?

We are writing this letter as people who care deeply about community and about fairness. We hope that you will consider this in your deliberations.

Teresa Parsons

art and government

The latest news around town is that someone looked up some old songs I made and is going around playing them for people in the neighborhood, suggesting that the song or songs proves something or have some kind of relevance to whether or not the town government is well run or some song is supposed to be relevant to whether or not the town has a legitimate reason to have spent $60,000 prosecuting me. Sound, light, and gravity decay at the inverse square of distance, meaning the charge against me is impossible, even if some people do not understand art.

Shakespeare wrote Richard III but he did not murder his nephews. Nevertheless, the theaters were closed by religious zealots in 1642 and the Globe theater was destroyed by puritans.

Satire, character, context... the zealots didn't care about that. When you read an individual sonnet, for example, you can be sure Shakespeare is Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Pagan, atheists, gay, straight... if you take an individual piece out of a play you could say he was a murderer, insane, a liar... etc.

And no I didn't say I produced art as great as Shakespeare's. I wasn't trying to. But you can't hear the songs and not notice satire, humor and character, can you?

But that Shakespeare is beyond reproach, or suppression, was not obvious to everyone in 1642, was it? Lot of people hated Shakespeare and the theater in general. Actors will little better than prostitutes, in their opinion. Yet here we are 500 years later and we kind of know who was right. Not the zealots.

So someone is going around playing some song which supposedly proves something in order to try and stop people in the neighborhood from supporting me against a town that is spending tons of money to get me for legitimate reason.

Which song is it? And of these? You see some of where whatever song they have or don't like is coming from...

I wouldn't waste my time on this problem but it kind of shows malice to me, with no real legitimate issue for people to complain about. I didn't make them go download a song they don't like... they hate it so much, they are going around playing it for neighbors.

Sigh. All I want is to run a small business and be able to exercise my constitutional rights at the same time. I would like open, accountable government. I would like the government to treat all people equally and fairly. I would like due process and the rule of law. I would like the economy to grow and small business to be able to invest without interference from intrusive government.

While were at it, I would like art to be off limits as a reason for a government to deprive me of my property.

Members of the government are aware that the people who filed complaints on "dog barking" originally are the same ones downloading and sharing the song. They can do that -- share the song -- but the government is obligated to note the fact that the legitimacy of the original "dog barking" complaint is extremely suspect. If the government continues to work with and promote the agenda of people who have outed themselves as having a malicious and personal agenda, well, that would be a problem. The government should say, well, maam, you seem to have changed your story or have an agenda with no public interest. We only do things that have some kind of public interest. Sorry, the constitution does not allow us to work with this complaint any more.

See? If you say you hear loud dogs, you cannot then say you're real problem is you do don't like some song. Or you cannot make racially charged comments on the internet. You have to stick to your story, which is dog barking. If the government doesn't care that you changed your story, then the government is in error. If the government spends $60,000 to make your charges stick even though you keep changing your story, that's a problem too.

The government has the burden of proof. The government has obligations to treat all fairly under the 14th amendment.

You call the cops. You say Fred stole your horse. Fred says no, it was always my horse and shows the receipt from when he bought it and a photograph of him on the horse from 5 years ago. Then you say yeah, well, but Fred tried to hit on my wife or he is just such an ass... at this point the cop is supposed to leave, not hire a special prosecutor from the biggest law firm in Albany and figure out if there is a secondary charge they can get Fred on now that the horse stealing situation isn't panning out...

The government long ago should have walked away from a cabal of complainers who have no legitimate complaint. The opposite happened in this case. In fact, it may be worse than the analogy with the horse above. The cop may have asked you to report Fred for something before it had occurred to you to file a complaint.

accounting and the bond

Will there be a separate account for the bond funds to assure that money from the bond issue goes for construction and project specific purposes or will the borrowed money be dumped into the general fund to experience the kind of irregularities we've seen in the past with the general fund?

Friends -

The zeal with which the Town pursued this tax-raising project, despite their long-touted position of being categorically against tax increases (used to justify their failure to pursue grants for the Railroad Station Project and Hummel Park) makes me think that the project is to someone's benefit....I will be watching closely, as I know others will, to insure that the Town dots every i and crosses every t, and that no "sweetheart" or "quid-pro-quo" deals are struck here.

Is the Town's new motto: "Hundreds of thousands for a Highway Garage, but not one cent for the Schoolhouse Road Bridge?" They ignore critical infrastructure problems that don't affect them or their cronies directly, but all of a sudden it's no problem to indebt the Town to the cost of over a million dollars (including interest) for a project that's far larger and more expensive than it needed to be.

The Board ignored lower-cost alternatives and the objections of a significant percentage of the Town's residents - if slightly less than half of those who voted - to push this through. In the law there is a principle in investigation of corruption: cui bono? - meaning "who benefits?" Let's watch closely and see...

Ned

today at sleeping dog farm

55K versus 450K: paying 900% too much

Note that Claverack just got Clean Water Program to help finance (50%) a salt shed that only cost $110,000 to begin with. Supervisor Andrews got her taxpayers a better bang for their buck through a bit of extra effort and willingness to cooperate with another program.

-- Lee Jamison

Register Star runs a piece without mentioning the opposition, namely, me, for example. Register Star ran highway superintendent's opinion but not one from the opposition.

$250 per month per mile in salt storage

Look on the bright side - it's only about $3000 per mile of road per year, on top of the regular highway budget. I should have posted this sooner, but just got around to doing the math today, and didn't have time to type it up until now.

$845,000 at 4% over 15 years => $280,065 interest
$845,000 + $280,065 = $1,125,065 total project cost

$1,125,065/25 miles of town road = $45,000 per mile of road, on top of the regular highway budget, assuming they can actually get a 4% loan.

Or, annually: $6250.36 * 12 months = $75,004/year
$74,004/12 = $3000/mile per year, or $250/mile per month in addition to the regular highway budget.

-- Michelle Richardson

lost, damn... would have liked to stop this bad project

Well, the voters chose to increase their own taxes. Go figure. Terrible waste of money. If people don't vote... you're taxes go up for no good reason.

Why did 253 people vote to increase their own taxes? 179 people voted no. 730 people didn't vote. Still, all of our taxes will go up. The majority didn't vote. I tried.

check back after 9 pm for referendum results

I'll bring my iPad to town hall and post here. No wifi at town hall.

stuyvesant architect on the garage project

The same people who rejected a qurater-million dollar grant (not a loan, a grant) for the Hummel Park because upkeep would add to the tax burden, now apparently think nothing of spending almost half a million dollars to build a salt shed that could be built for less than 25% of that amount.

They have ignored documented evidence that the fabric structures - even used by the NYs DOT - are a much better and cheaper alternative to the monstrosity they hope to build on Sharptown Road.

It is our money, not theirs. If they were right to pinch pennies around the issue of Hummel Park, they should be just as frugal in spending our tax dollars on this extravagant monument to bad planning.

As Martin points out, emerging technologies like liquid salt are the wave of the future, but our Board is locking us into the "wave of the past" with soon-to-be-obsolete infrastructure we'll be paying off for decades to come. This is the wrong time to make such an expenditure, and it is the wrong kind of expenditure to make.

Vote NO.

Ned Depew

vote no

Today, 2-9 PM, Stuyvesant Town Hall. No new tax.

this town is insane

Yes, at least $57,000 to get me on a dog barking charge... which is impossible.

How much doez the city of Albany spend on a murder indictment?

It is a DOG BARKING compliant. Not even true one. The town spent about 15 per cent of the non-highway budget on this.

This is insane.

VOTE NO ON TUESDAY!!!! These people are insane!!!!!

Here is what I got through FOIL:

Tal: the town lawyer's fees relating to my case

August 2010 = 1562.50
September 2010 = 437.50
October 2010 = 937.50 (Hook Boat Club 7 hours to lower assessment)
November 2010 = 1406.25
December 2010 = 875
January 2011 = 593.75
February 2011 = 375 (Hook Boat Club meeting with county 2 hours)
March 2011 = 1125
April 2011 = 250
May 2011 = 312.50
June 2011 = 250

Total for Tal for 2010 and 2011: $8115


Whiteman Osterman and Hanna: big Albany law firm

March 2011: $11,811.53
April 2011: $7,141.56
May 2011: $6,694.17
June and July unavailable but likely well over $7000 per month. August will be much higher. So let's do 7, 7 and 10 for the three missing months.

Total legal expenses: $57,761

stuyvesant and the law

Will Conclusion at Zoning 8/9/11 from Rhonda Granger on Vimeo.

That's the video from the hearing. Here are some of the letters written after the hearing. Nieghbor Jamie Pilkington wrote, "There was no one in the audience who spends more time walking/biking past Will’s farm than me. No one. I can assure you, the dog barking that comes from 7 other locations in the hamlet far exceeds any sound I’ve ever heard coming from Will’s farm." Neighbor Pam Herzing wrote, "No Justice in Stuyvesant." Neighbor Janardan Culver wrote, "Will Pflaum and his family are a big asset to our community and are wonderful, considerate people."

"We hear dogs barking on a daily basis both from our neighbors and as we walk through the community. We have never noticed any difference in the loudness or quantity of dogs barking when we are near the Glencadia Dog Camp, in fact, the barking from our neighbors dogs is much louder and more frequent," said David Reynolds and M. Carol Leber.

"We the Vlad family live on 66 Rybka road which is very close to Will's family business and we don't hear the dogs barking from Will's business. On August 7th 2011 we went to the open house in the Dog Barn and we saw all the dogs which were very friendly and very happy. It would be foolish and not fair to close down Will's family business."

Observer Larissa Phillips wrote, "The way that the town board is going about this process seems unprofessional and inexperienced... to the point that it looks very much like bias or bullying or something much worse, probably illegal, is going on."

Observer Liz Rice wrote, "I was shocked by the disrespect and bullying that was allowed. I cannot believe the allegations were so feeble and that proof was not needed or required by those people opposing Mr. Pflaum. The board members were rude and intolerant of Mr. Pflaum's attempts to clear his name and treated him with bias and disrespect."

Observer Megan Lipke noted, "The town board is gaining a reputation for being a collection of ignorant, racist and resentful hicks."

Melanie Bonventre said this to the board: "I hope you can find it in your hearts to back down. I know it is hard to admit you are wrong or have lost. But you are wrong and you have lost."

Matthew Wohlers coninuted, "I am astonished to hear that in these difficult times of high unemployment and hardship, the Board of Stuyvesant is prepared to destroy not only a family business, but also jobs of members of its own community."

Here is the case I was not allowed to make by the zoning board: all the complaints are false and the existence of "complaints" is entirely dependent on the hostility of the town government. If the government were not hostile, the complaints would not exist.

The complaints did not emerge because of something I did. The complaints emerged because the town board wanted to get me. The hostility of the town government pre-dates the complaints. The town was involved in and encouraged the complaints.

Not only are the complaints the product of a government encouraged campaign of harassment, all the letters included bald face lies.

That is my case. It's not that people have legitimate complaints, or that they are mistaken about what dogs they here. I could make a case about that, or that this is simply a misunderstanding between neighbors.

I don't believe the evidence supports those cases. The case I want to make, because I believe it is true and something I can and hopefully will prove in a court of law, is that the town started the whole thing, went out fishing for complaints, and that the people who complained did so because they wanted to accrue advantages for themselves in future dealings with the town government.

The whole process was illegal from the start. By encouraging public comments when they are not necessary, after the town encouraged people to submit letters full of lies, the zoning board, in illegal coordination with the town board, is promoting a climate of violence and harassment that is a threat to public safety. The ZBA process itself is part of a broad conspiracy to deny me my constitutional rights and attack me and my family extra-judicially with threats, vandalism and denial of essential services.

That is the case I wanted to make. The board didn't want to hear it. I have the evidence to prove it.

I didn't get a chance to finish my presentation. Here are the files I would have present. I would have presented this list of vigilantism, threats and surveillance. This list has grown longer since the hearing. This witch hunt has consequences for public safety and the zoning board seems not to care about the safety of my family.

If Bill Vick had not interrupted me, I would have gone over the law and science with a fine tooth comb.

If I had not been stopped, I would have explained that the reason people felt comfortable or even obliged to send in coordinated letters full of statements that the writers knew to be false at the time is because the town board made it very clear that they approved of this kind of illegal lying. Patty Yerick claims to have an upstairs, bedroon window out of which she can see dogs on my property and see my house and has continually contracted herself. I paid for a sound study that has been endorsed by the editor of the world's leading peer review acoustical architecture journal in the world. Ron Knott, the town's deputy supervisor, sided with the lady with the magic window, not with the guy with 3 PhD acoustical engineers and a PhD physics on his side. Here are the problems with Ron Knott piling on and saying things he couldn't possibly know and in fact was very wrong.

If I had not been interrupted, I would have shown that the town engaged in bad faith negotiations and simultaneously encouraged the complaint campaign in the first place. The behavior of the town is so outrageous, my evidence is so good, they stopped me from talking.

If they had not deprived me of the opportunity to make my case, I would have shown that David R. Everett's presence in this process is a violation of New York State public officers law.

We would have talked about Al Sharpton. We would have shown this video about the magic window.


I would have played this statement by Valerie Bertram that I am convicted already. Here is Valerie Bertram explaining how to solve the problem: but what is it that they are asking me to do, other than move out of town? Here is what the supervisor thinks about the fire chief telling me to get out of town and a member of her town board threatening to beat me up.

The board didn't give me time to go over all the things Gerry Ennis did wrong.

What is the different between this resolution in the town board and this act of vandalism? No difference. The town board encourages vandalism and engages in threats. The town board encourages divisive hearing and then there is vandalism the next day in the neighborhood.

The town board is lawless. This town government is utter disrespectful of the rule of law and encourages extra-judicial behavior. This combination is a recipe for damage to property and public safety and is utterly reckless and dangerous.

How can I say that? I can prove it. But they cut me off before I was done.

I just got the invoices for Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, Albany attorneys lawyers, David R. Everett, partner through FOIL. Mr. Everett and the rest of the team at Whiteman Osterman and Hanna has been an enthusiastic even zealous enablers of the dangerous vendetta of the town government of Stuyvesant against my family and small children. Yes, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, I will demand you answer for your role as lawyer to the ... cronies.

When my mother-in-law said this reminded her of her parent's generation, you did do the math, right? She was born in 1947 in Germany.

martin roby on the salt shed

After attending a number of hearings on the proposed salt shed and garage project in Stuyvesant, I am shocked how irresponsible the town board is with money. The board proposes to fund this project with borrowing 100%, no money down, nothing set aside over the years.

The town has not looked into sharing services with other towns or the county. The county has a huge salt shed in Kinderhook. In addition more modern liquid (or wet salt) methods use a fraction of the salt the current bulk dump systems use. Sand can be applied after for grip. This would result in using a less salt, less pollution, less cost to the taxpayers, and the evidence suggests wet systems melts the ice better and more safely.

The town is insisting on a custom built salt shed which will cost anywhere from two to four times as much as a pre-fab shed. In
addition, the town has been sued in Federal court for alleged misconduct and illegal activities. Banks don't loan money out to Plaintiffs in lawsuits and the taxpayers should not either.

I'm asking the residents of Stuyvesant to do the right thing and vote no on borrowing almost a million dollars for a project than may be unnecessary or it at least vastly inflated. All residents (even Stuyvesant Falls) vote at Stuyvesant Town Hall, August 16 between 2:00pm - 9:00pm