No more corruption.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
letter from the lawyer
LYNCH & HETMAN, PLLC
Albany, New York 12207
September 7, 2011
Zoning Board of Appeals
Attn: William Vick, Chairperson
C/o Shirley Narzynski, Secretary to the Board
Stuyvesant Town Hall
5 Sunset Drive
Stuyvesant, New York 12173 First Class and E-Mail
Re: Will Pflaum (Glencadia Dog Camp)
Zoning Board Meeting Date: September 27, 2011 @ 7:00 P.M.
Dear Chairperson Vick and Zoning Board Members:
I write this letter to address several issues raised at the August 23, 2011 meeting, as ask that this submission be made a part of the record of this proceeding.
At the August 23, 2011 Meeting, Chairperson Vick questioned whether the barn could be used as a Home Occupation 2, due to the fact that the barn exists on a separate lot pursuant to a two-lot subdivision previously approved by the Board. As more fully appears in my letter of even date to the Planning Board, copy submitted herewith, my clients have filed a deed in the Columbia County Clerk’s Office to merge the two Lots that they own into a single Tax Map Lot. Thus, they have abandoned the prior two-Lot subdivision. Accordingly, the Barn and the House now exist on the same Lot as required by the Zoning Ordinance (see Ordinance page 27, Home-Occupation-Class 2, paragraph 1).
As you know, the Chairman raised an issue of whether allowing the dogs to go into the fenced area around the barn was an activity “within the…on-lot accessory structure” as required by the Ordinance (see Ordinance page 27, Home-Occupation-Class 2, paragraph 1). By Ordinance definition, “structures” include “fences over four (4) feet in height” (see Ordinance, page 12). Here, it is manifest that the fence creating the yard adjoining the barn exceeds four (4’) feet in height and constitutes part of the on-lot accessory structure that is used to house the dogs, all in accord with the requirements of a Home Occupation-Class 2.
I note that there are other Home Occupation 2 uses within the Town that use an accessory building, and the area around the building as part of the Home Occupation 2 business operation. By way of example, kindly consider the operation of the auto repair business of Dennis and Shirley Narzynski, 3741 Route 21, Schodack Landing, New York as a Home Occupation–Class 2. For your reference, I have enclosed an aerial photo of the repair business, depicting the on site garage and parking areas accessory to the garage, together with the Planning Board Minutes dated 10/17/02, in which the Board granted approval of the auto repair shop as a “Home Occupation-Class 2”. I have also attached the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes dated 1/10/04, 4/27/04, 6/22/04, and 3/27/07, in which the Zoning Board ratified the use of the auto repair shop as a Home Occupation-Class 2, and granted a sign variance for the shop. Clearly, such precedent establishes that use of the immediate area around the accessory structure falls within the parameters of a Home Occupation- Class 2.
I note that Chairperson Vick also questioned whether the Glencadia Dog camp constituted a commercial business, which should limited to a commercial zone, and not allowed in the subject Zone as a Home Occupation 2. It is manifest that the Dog Camp is a far softer use of the premises than an auto repair shop. It would certainly be arbitrary and capricious to find that an auto repair shop exists as a Home Occupation-Class 2, and that a dog kennel is a commercial business that is not allowed as a Home Occupation-Class 2. Submitted please find an additional copy of the January 27, 2009 letter from the ZEO, stating, “The fact that the business [i.e. the kennel] is housed in your barn makes it become classified as a HOME OCCUPATION-CLASS 2”. I note that the Planning Board has already determined that the Dog Camp constitutes a Home Occupation – Class 2, and the Zoning Board does not have appellate jurisdiction over the Planning Board’s determination. Last, the premises is insured as a farm and I have enclosed the Insurance receipt for the Board’s information. I remain,
Very Truly Yours
LYNCH & HETMAN, PLLC
Peter A. Lynch
PETER A. LYNCH, ESQ.
Cc Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP
Attn: David R. Everett, Esq. via e-mail
Will Pflaum via e-mail
Albany, New York 12207
September 7, 2011
Zoning Board of Appeals
Attn: William Vick, Chairperson
C/o Shirley Narzynski, Secretary to the Board
Stuyvesant Town Hall
5 Sunset Drive
Stuyvesant, New York 12173 First Class and E-Mail
Re: Will Pflaum (Glencadia Dog Camp)
Zoning Board Meeting Date: September 27, 2011 @ 7:00 P.M.
Dear Chairperson Vick and Zoning Board Members:
I write this letter to address several issues raised at the August 23, 2011 meeting, as ask that this submission be made a part of the record of this proceeding.
At the August 23, 2011 Meeting, Chairperson Vick questioned whether the barn could be used as a Home Occupation 2, due to the fact that the barn exists on a separate lot pursuant to a two-lot subdivision previously approved by the Board. As more fully appears in my letter of even date to the Planning Board, copy submitted herewith, my clients have filed a deed in the Columbia County Clerk’s Office to merge the two Lots that they own into a single Tax Map Lot. Thus, they have abandoned the prior two-Lot subdivision. Accordingly, the Barn and the House now exist on the same Lot as required by the Zoning Ordinance (see Ordinance page 27, Home-Occupation-Class 2, paragraph 1).
As you know, the Chairman raised an issue of whether allowing the dogs to go into the fenced area around the barn was an activity “within the…on-lot accessory structure” as required by the Ordinance (see Ordinance page 27, Home-Occupation-Class 2, paragraph 1). By Ordinance definition, “structures” include “fences over four (4) feet in height” (see Ordinance, page 12). Here, it is manifest that the fence creating the yard adjoining the barn exceeds four (4’) feet in height and constitutes part of the on-lot accessory structure that is used to house the dogs, all in accord with the requirements of a Home Occupation-Class 2.
I note that there are other Home Occupation 2 uses within the Town that use an accessory building, and the area around the building as part of the Home Occupation 2 business operation. By way of example, kindly consider the operation of the auto repair business of Dennis and Shirley Narzynski, 3741 Route 21, Schodack Landing, New York as a Home Occupation–Class 2. For your reference, I have enclosed an aerial photo of the repair business, depicting the on site garage and parking areas accessory to the garage, together with the Planning Board Minutes dated 10/17/02, in which the Board granted approval of the auto repair shop as a “Home Occupation-Class 2”. I have also attached the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes dated 1/10/04, 4/27/04, 6/22/04, and 3/27/07, in which the Zoning Board ratified the use of the auto repair shop as a Home Occupation-Class 2, and granted a sign variance for the shop. Clearly, such precedent establishes that use of the immediate area around the accessory structure falls within the parameters of a Home Occupation- Class 2.
I note that Chairperson Vick also questioned whether the Glencadia Dog camp constituted a commercial business, which should limited to a commercial zone, and not allowed in the subject Zone as a Home Occupation 2. It is manifest that the Dog Camp is a far softer use of the premises than an auto repair shop. It would certainly be arbitrary and capricious to find that an auto repair shop exists as a Home Occupation-Class 2, and that a dog kennel is a commercial business that is not allowed as a Home Occupation-Class 2. Submitted please find an additional copy of the January 27, 2009 letter from the ZEO, stating, “The fact that the business [i.e. the kennel] is housed in your barn makes it become classified as a HOME OCCUPATION-CLASS 2”. I note that the Planning Board has already determined that the Dog Camp constitutes a Home Occupation – Class 2, and the Zoning Board does not have appellate jurisdiction over the Planning Board’s determination. Last, the premises is insured as a farm and I have enclosed the Insurance receipt for the Board’s information. I remain,
Very Truly Yours
LYNCH & HETMAN, PLLC
Peter A. Lynch
PETER A. LYNCH, ESQ.
Cc Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP
Attn: David R. Everett, Esq. via e-mail
Will Pflaum via e-mail
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
do you need an 18-wheeler to transport an old broom and a rag?
No. No. Do you need an 80-lawyer law firm and $70,000 to prosecute a dog barking complaint?
do you need an 18-wheeler to transport an old broom and a rag? from glencadia on Vimeo.
Monday, September 5, 2011
points from the county fair
We, me and my volunteers, spent 6 days at the Columbia County Fair talking about accountability and fairness in government. Here are some lessons and updates from that experience:
1) I have written a few new pieces for the blog since breaking the anti-corruption booth down. Here is my article about how corruption could be addressed if the political will existed. Here is a list of things on the blog for people who have not been following my case up until now.
2) It was great to talk to people. Thank you to everyone who stopped to chat a bit. Thank you to the hundreds of you who stopped to sign a petition or leave your email for the mailing list. Thank you to the 800 of you who took a flyer. Thank you to the hundreds that came back to check out the blog. I guess more people know what that white dog on a red sign means now.
3) Thank you to all the volunteers who took a shift in the booth. No way I could have covered 6 days by myself. And you guys were more effective at getting signatures than me anyway. Kind of better to have someone else tell the story.
4) I met a lot of interesting people. For example, I found out about this case: Here is an article on a recent and somewhat similar case in the same federal court where I filed my suit.
This suit in Troy was much cleaner and simpler than mine. Similar in the free speech issues, the abuse of zoning authority to squelch speech. Dissimilar in that I argue that I was targeted for reporting criminal activity in town government, activity which is ongoing and unpunished. Mine is not simply a free speech issue. I also want the court to do something about the the underlying problem of illegal activity and make it possible for this stuff to be punished in the future.
Also, you will note, the art center won a judgement against the city even though the center DID IN FACT have the wrong doors, swinging in, not out. In my case, there is no similar problem.
Again, they did have a zoning problem. They still won. I have no zoning problem. I think I should win too, more clearly than in the case cited above.
5) We ran out of large and extra large shirts. I should have known!
6) I heard a lot of stories about corruption in the county. Not too many people were shocked to hear the county is not being run in the public interest.
7) I was right next to the Republican table and yet only one elected official stopped by to hear what I had to say. Hundreds of other people heard me out. One did listen: Holly Tanner. She's a professional. She listened. Thank you. And Eugene Keller, candidate for District Attorney, he's got my vote. I know one's a Republican and one's a Democrat but I like both of them and not too many others so far.
I'm non-partisan. I want good government and don't see either party doing much to stop corruption. Step up, folks.
That'll have to do it for now. Thank you again for stopping by to hear me out and read my blog. If India can have an anti-corruption movement, so can New York. Thanks again.
1) I have written a few new pieces for the blog since breaking the anti-corruption booth down. Here is my article about how corruption could be addressed if the political will existed. Here is a list of things on the blog for people who have not been following my case up until now.
2) It was great to talk to people. Thank you to everyone who stopped to chat a bit. Thank you to the hundreds of you who stopped to sign a petition or leave your email for the mailing list. Thank you to the 800 of you who took a flyer. Thank you to the hundreds that came back to check out the blog. I guess more people know what that white dog on a red sign means now.
3) Thank you to all the volunteers who took a shift in the booth. No way I could have covered 6 days by myself. And you guys were more effective at getting signatures than me anyway. Kind of better to have someone else tell the story.
4) I met a lot of interesting people. For example, I found out about this case: Here is an article on a recent and somewhat similar case in the same federal court where I filed my suit.
This suit in Troy was much cleaner and simpler than mine. Similar in the free speech issues, the abuse of zoning authority to squelch speech. Dissimilar in that I argue that I was targeted for reporting criminal activity in town government, activity which is ongoing and unpunished. Mine is not simply a free speech issue. I also want the court to do something about the the underlying problem of illegal activity and make it possible for this stuff to be punished in the future.
Also, you will note, the art center won a judgement against the city even though the center DID IN FACT have the wrong doors, swinging in, not out. In my case, there is no similar problem.
Again, they did have a zoning problem. They still won. I have no zoning problem. I think I should win too, more clearly than in the case cited above.
5) We ran out of large and extra large shirts. I should have known!
6) I heard a lot of stories about corruption in the county. Not too many people were shocked to hear the county is not being run in the public interest.
7) I was right next to the Republican table and yet only one elected official stopped by to hear what I had to say. Hundreds of other people heard me out. One did listen: Holly Tanner. She's a professional. She listened. Thank you. And Eugene Keller, candidate for District Attorney, he's got my vote. I know one's a Republican and one's a Democrat but I like both of them and not too many others so far.
I'm non-partisan. I want good government and don't see either party doing much to stop corruption. Step up, folks.
That'll have to do it for now. Thank you again for stopping by to hear me out and read my blog. If India can have an anti-corruption movement, so can New York. Thanks again.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Good Government Booth at the County Fair
4h, hot dogs, rides, crafts and anti-corruption campaign: what could be more American? Want to know about the white dog on a red sign? Come to open government booth at the Columbia County county fair.
Want my story? Try this.
Want a complete rap sheet on the town, try this.
Will Pflaum
Small business owner: glencadia.com
Blogger: sunshineonthehudson.com
American citizen
Want my story? Try this.
Want a complete rap sheet on the town, try this.
Will Pflaum
Small business owner: glencadia.com
Blogger: sunshineonthehudson.com
American citizen
Live blogging from the county fair
The dog blog is at the county fair by the main entrance to the exhibit hall. Come on by. Also, we got a top level domain cooking ... Sunshineonthehudson.com
Come by and say hello.
Sign a petition. Thanks.
Come by and say hello.
Sign a petition. Thanks.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
audio and video from Tuesday night
You can see video of the hearing below. Audio links at the top, video at the bottom.
Here is the audio about the fence as not being a structure. Here is my point that a fence is a structure under town law.
Here is the audio when they vote on the issue of noise. This was the resolution: Should they restore the permit because Gerry Ennis failed to prove that my facility produces noise that exceeds that produced by a normal residence?
Jeff Jensen has to acknowledge that there was no noise. Votes yes.
Kent Kneller votes yes very quietly.
Bill William Vick votes no. Hard to understand that.More people said they don't hear squat and no one consistently even complained about noise. They complained about other stuff, not noise. No complaints of loud noise. Go back and check it out. Who said "loud noise" and stuck to that story? No one.
Next is Margaret Pino. She says the noise must be annoying to someone. She acknowledges that it is not loud. If it is not loud, there is no law that can possibly apply.
I jump in and say "annoying" is not in the law. The law says, "Unusual noise that exceeds that produced my a normal residence." We don't know what an unusual noise is. We don't know what a normal residence is. We have no evidence at all that there was ever any loud noise because that defies the laws of physics.
Annoying noise ordinance? You can play that CD you like but you have to skip track 3, the song that has that bell in it, because I don't like track 3? And you can listen to Fox News because I like Fox but if you play Aljazeera or the BBC at the same volume, you are in violation of the ordinance?
Amy Abatti votes yes. The resolution gets a majority of those present, 3 out of 5, but fails to carry because the majority is 4, out of a number of possible seats of 7 on the board.
So, two people voted no. They knew for a fact it is not loud when they made those votes. Pino said that it is not loud. Vick was here at the site and cannot possibly argue that it could ever be loud. Yet they think that Gerry Ennis proved that it is loud.
Did Ennis prove something? You stood there, heard nothing, you know it's not true, yet you vote that an officer proved something that you know is not true? You vote on some standard other than the law, "annoying" or merely citing the existence of a complaint without noting the existence of more letters not complaining and stating something you experience first hand: not loud.
You did not allow me time to demonstrate that the complaints are malicious. Then you base your vote on the same complaints, assuming they are valid when I was not allowed to show that that are not valid, again, ignoring the more numerous letters supporting your own personal experience of not loud.
Those are really, really bad votes. David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, an Albany law firm with 80 lawyers, attorneys, specializing in municipal law, did not bother to re-read the law to clarify what it was they were voting on and seemed to have to problem with the "annoying noise" vote or the "complaint" vote.
Bill William Vick of Stuyvesant heard nothing at all. He was right here. He knows. Margaret Pino admits that "volume is not the issue." But in the law, it is the issue.
Law. You are supposed to uphold the law. Not vote your prejudices. Jeff Jensen, Amy Abatti and Kent Keller knew that the truth matters. William Bill Vick and Margaret Pino should re-think the law and the evidence and give it another try.
Thank you.
And here is the magic window:
Now here are members of the board not caring particularly that the window and the noise don't exist... willful disregard of the truth.
And below (video) David R. Everett tries to confuse everyone with mumbo rumbo about irrelevant hypothetical situations. The ZBA does not have the authority to enforce civil actions based on New York Town Law. The fact that the town could file a civil suit in state court based on state law is entirely irrelevant to this board, which is a town board ruling on town law. The town could file a case in federal court. The town could vote to paint town hall green. So what?
The ZBA is here to rule on town law. New York law is not the issue before the board. There is no civil suit in New York court. That is a hypothetical option the town did not take. The town chose to use town law to enforce town zoning violations only the town did it WRONG. State law does not come into this. The ZBA is here to rule on the town's zoning rules. Gerry Ennis, the town's zoning guy, did not follow the town law.
Civil suit in state court, please. They would need EVIDENCE there...
Amy is right about town law. Everett is wrong about town law. He just tried to throw legalistic smoke in everyone's eyes to ignore the clear language of the law that the ZBA is charged to enforce. Outrageous. What the hell is Everett thinking? Where is the public interest in paying taxpayer money illegally to David R. Everett to throw smoke in the board's eyes and prevent them from enforcing the law they are bound to enforce?
If I need legal advice in the future, I'm calling Amy. Any normal municipalities out there thinking of hiring David R. Everett or Whiteman Osterman and Hanna might consider that as a cheaper option as well. This is pretty shabby legal work. The law is not Mr. Everett's toy.
And speaking of law, here is Maraget Pino making up an annoying noise law... I mean, if you don't like the law you are sworn to enforce, why not just make up your own on the spot to fit your mood at the time? Isn't that what tyrants do?
Here is the audio about the fence as not being a structure. Here is my point that a fence is a structure under town law.
Here is the audio when they vote on the issue of noise. This was the resolution: Should they restore the permit because Gerry Ennis failed to prove that my facility produces noise that exceeds that produced by a normal residence?
Jeff Jensen has to acknowledge that there was no noise. Votes yes.
Kent Kneller votes yes very quietly.
Bill William Vick votes no. Hard to understand that.More people said they don't hear squat and no one consistently even complained about noise. They complained about other stuff, not noise. No complaints of loud noise. Go back and check it out. Who said "loud noise" and stuck to that story? No one.
Next is Margaret Pino. She says the noise must be annoying to someone. She acknowledges that it is not loud. If it is not loud, there is no law that can possibly apply.
I jump in and say "annoying" is not in the law. The law says, "Unusual noise that exceeds that produced my a normal residence." We don't know what an unusual noise is. We don't know what a normal residence is. We have no evidence at all that there was ever any loud noise because that defies the laws of physics.
Annoying noise ordinance? You can play that CD you like but you have to skip track 3, the song that has that bell in it, because I don't like track 3? And you can listen to Fox News because I like Fox but if you play Aljazeera or the BBC at the same volume, you are in violation of the ordinance?
Amy Abatti votes yes. The resolution gets a majority of those present, 3 out of 5, but fails to carry because the majority is 4, out of a number of possible seats of 7 on the board.
So, two people voted no. They knew for a fact it is not loud when they made those votes. Pino said that it is not loud. Vick was here at the site and cannot possibly argue that it could ever be loud. Yet they think that Gerry Ennis proved that it is loud.
Did Ennis prove something? You stood there, heard nothing, you know it's not true, yet you vote that an officer proved something that you know is not true? You vote on some standard other than the law, "annoying" or merely citing the existence of a complaint without noting the existence of more letters not complaining and stating something you experience first hand: not loud.
You did not allow me time to demonstrate that the complaints are malicious. Then you base your vote on the same complaints, assuming they are valid when I was not allowed to show that that are not valid, again, ignoring the more numerous letters supporting your own personal experience of not loud.
Those are really, really bad votes. David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, an Albany law firm with 80 lawyers, attorneys, specializing in municipal law, did not bother to re-read the law to clarify what it was they were voting on and seemed to have to problem with the "annoying noise" vote or the "complaint" vote.
Bill William Vick of Stuyvesant heard nothing at all. He was right here. He knows. Margaret Pino admits that "volume is not the issue." But in the law, it is the issue.
Law. You are supposed to uphold the law. Not vote your prejudices. Jeff Jensen, Amy Abatti and Kent Keller knew that the truth matters. William Bill Vick and Margaret Pino should re-think the law and the evidence and give it another try.
Thank you.
And here is the magic window:
Patricia Yerick discussing her window from glencadia on Vimeo.
Now here are members of the board not caring particularly that the window and the noise don't exist... willful disregard of the truth.
William Bill Vick of Stuyvesant arguing in favor of the magic window from glencadia on Vimeo.
And below (video) David R. Everett tries to confuse everyone with mumbo rumbo about irrelevant hypothetical situations. The ZBA does not have the authority to enforce civil actions based on New York Town Law. The fact that the town could file a civil suit in state court based on state law is entirely irrelevant to this board, which is a town board ruling on town law. The town could file a case in federal court. The town could vote to paint town hall green. So what?
The ZBA is here to rule on town law. New York law is not the issue before the board. There is no civil suit in New York court. That is a hypothetical option the town did not take. The town chose to use town law to enforce town zoning violations only the town did it WRONG. State law does not come into this. The ZBA is here to rule on the town's zoning rules. Gerry Ennis, the town's zoning guy, did not follow the town law.
Civil suit in state court, please. They would need EVIDENCE there...
Amy is right about town law. Everett is wrong about town law. He just tried to throw legalistic smoke in everyone's eyes to ignore the clear language of the law that the ZBA is charged to enforce. Outrageous. What the hell is Everett thinking? Where is the public interest in paying taxpayer money illegally to David R. Everett to throw smoke in the board's eyes and prevent them from enforcing the law they are bound to enforce?
If I need legal advice in the future, I'm calling Amy. Any normal municipalities out there thinking of hiring David R. Everett or Whiteman Osterman and Hanna might consider that as a cheaper option as well. This is pretty shabby legal work. The law is not Mr. Everett's toy.
David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna from glencadia on Vimeo.
And speaking of law, here is Maraget Pino making up an annoying noise law... I mean, if you don't like the law you are sworn to enforce, why not just make up your own on the spot to fit your mood at the time? Isn't that what tyrants do?
here is margaret pino of stuyvesant legislating from glencadia on Vimeo.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
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:
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?
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?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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:
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:
Sunday, August 21, 2011
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:
Here is down by the end of the road:
Are we done yet?
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?
Saturday, August 20, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, August 19, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
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
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.
-- 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
$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
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)