media

CCScoop photos from the hearing.

Columbia Paper. Good story.

WGXC on the handwritten note.

Register Star. Nice article.

on my other blog

I wrote up a plan to fix upstate New York on my other blog.

too big?

So, the basic argument is that 75 dogs is too many and I should be zoned commercial. My response: first of all, I only have that many maybe 10 days a year and don't really want that many. I offered to settle on  a lower number. The town attorney AGREED with my settlement offer. However, he did not agree because he accepted our offer but because he want to set a trap and get me before the planning board to ambush me.

In other words, bad faith negotiations. I offered to settle. The town attorney, Tal Rappleyea, engaged in bad faith negotiations and conspiracy to defraud. Now, the ZBA says I should go back to the planning board? Do you think I can realistically do that? If the planning board were a reasonable place, why did they not agree to my terms? Why didn't the planning board accept my settlement terms when their own attorney agreed to them?

To limit my operation to 1500 sf for no reason is tantamount to changing my business into a different business. If you told a restaurant that already was approved with a big kitchen that no, they have to be a lunch counter with only cold sandwiches, that would be to force them into a new business.

I already have a big space. My customers want a big space. That is the whole point of the operation. If you say I have to be in a small space, then you are taking away the kitchen of the restaurant after they already bought $25,000 in equipment, have been operating legally with no complaints for years, and have not violated any rules.

You're talking to a guy from Matamoros, Mexico and he says how terrible these drug gangs are, running the town. And then you say, why don't you file a complaint with the police? And he starts rolling on the floor laughing. File a complaint with the police! Ha! Ha!  Ha! Ha! They are the drug gang!

David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is simply saying I should go back to the planning board and re-file my site plan review, everything will be fine. Back to the planning board! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! 

so here's what happen

Ambush. Here is the Register Star article. Not bad. But they missed a big point: reclassification to commercial is a death sentance.

Dog barking: that was what I was there to appeal: a dog bark charge. It wasn't true. Obviously: they didn't vote to sustain that charge.

How is that they re-zoned me for entirely different reasons without telling what the reasons are and letting me have a chance to answer the new charge?

In August 2010, I was charged with producing "unusual noise .... that exceeds that which is produced by a normal residence." I appealed to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, ZBA. I proved I was totally innocent.

In July 2011, the board expanded the scope of the hearing beyond my appeal and issued a new list of charges. I was not guilt of any those charges either.

At the last minute, the board voted to ruin me and close my business. The resolution they passed would force me to keep all my dogs inside at all times. That won't work. It's bull.

The board voted to ruin me on the basis of reasons that I NEVER SAW before the hearing last night. They claim the Planning Board screwed up in 2009 and never should have issued the permit I have in the first place.

To make that argument they cite a lot of stuff that happened after 2009. But how would the planning board have known what would happen in the future? And where does it say that the ZBA can overrule the planning board?

Also, shouldn't they have told me what the charge was before they voted on it? There is A LOT OF FALSE information in this resolution they just passed.

Also to come: Melissa Naegeli claims that Patty Yerrick submitted the packet of materials relating to protected free speech. That may be but there is no way that Patty Yerick wrote the handwritten note that accompanies the packet.

The handwriting doesn't match.

The more substantial issue is the note. Who wrote it? Melissa Naegeli says its not a member of the board. Or did she only mean the photocopies? Reliable sources close to Melisssa Naegeli, clerk for the town of Stuyvesant, claim she says she did not write the note herself.

I'm just confused. A legitimate question: who wrote it?

we lost

Basically, the ZBA ruled, following David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, that the planning board screwed up in 2009 and gave me the wrong permit. So therefore they get to close my business down. Makes no sense.

It's a nonsense.

I have no idea what I'm accused of having done wrong. Yet I'm already convicted.

Thank you to the many people who came out. We are touched.

we're going to loose tomorrow but do come out

Here is the town clerk talking about who put that packet in the board materials about songs and books they don't like. She knows who did it but is protecting her identity. What is the public interest in allowing anonymous personal attacks into the public record, as facilitated and protected by the town clerk?

After a year and half struggle, the fix is in and we're going to likely loose tomorrow night.

We are fighting to keep our business open and pay our mortgage and payroll for our great employees. We run a great business, a country getaway for city dogs and there are no problems with our operation. The process couldn't be more unfair. 

We want people to come. We don't want this to happen quietly. It's an injustice.

Tuesday, September 27
7 PM Stuyvesant Town Hall
5 Sunset Drive Stuyvesant, NY 12173

does the town of stuyvesant understand the first amendment? how about capitalism?

LYNCH & HETMAN, PLLC
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
         
September 23, 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:

     Please be advised that my client has received via FOIL, a copy of an undated handwritten memo, which evidences a personal attack on his character; a copy of the memo is attached hereto. Most troubling is the fact that my client has been advised that this Memo was written and circulated by a Board Member.  The memo evidences a state of mind that the author would not be able to make an impartial decision, free from bias; if issued by a Member, that Member must be recused (see New York Zoning Law and Practice, Salkin, Fourth Ed., Vol. 2, Ethical Considerations §31.09, p. 31-29, citing Op. (Inf.) Atty. Gen. 93-6 (1993)). I note that any personal objection to a different genre of music/poetry is irrelevant to the zoning issues at hand.  Moreover, my client’s music and poetry is simply free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Kindly make this submission a part of the record of the within proceeding. I remain,    
                             
                              Very Truly Yours                                      
                              LYNCH & HETMAN, PLLC
                               

Cc  Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP
    Attn: David R. Everett, Esq. via e-mail

    Will Pflaum via e-mail

Gerry Ennis Zoning Control Officer of the Town of Stuyvesant from glencadia on Vimeo.

Money = lie.
I thought I said enough about art here.

Hearing 15 next week

Hello,

Next week we will have our 15th hearing in Stuyvesant Town Hall. This should really be the last one here in town. No matter what happens, this battle moves to state (and/or federal court) or stops.

Tuesday, September 27
 7 PM Stuyvesant Town Hall
5 Sunset Drive
Stuyvesant, NY 12173 

Outline of case here.

Thanks for coming out again and again to all the people who have. I think it makes a big difference to have people there in the room, to our family. You coming also makes a difference to the idea of the rule of law, importance of constitutional protection for all. That's why we're asking folks to come out one more time. (Federal Court might be the next time, but who know when or if that will happen.)

Crooked, absurd, and wacky in one place, a hearing in Stuyvesant, all for the reasonable price of zippo. Dog shirts on, if you'd like, like this.

Glencadia Dog Camp is a small family business offering country vacations for New York City dogs in an agricultural district of Columbia County New York, operating since 2005, with a unanimous permit from the town planning board and no trouble or complaint until weeks after the 2009 election.

For almost two years, town of Stuyvesant has been looking for ways to close the business and/or lock up the owner, me, Will Pflaum. The town has thrown everything they have at me: criminal court, zoning, planning, and hired the biggest law firm in Albany, spending well over $70,000 to find a way to close the business.

 Why?

Dog barking bothering the neighbors? Nope. The charge of loud (or even sometimes audible) barking has been shown to be impossible in a study verified by the editor of the leading peer reviewed acoustics journal in the world and a whole posse of PhD scientists. Or, if you don't believe them, you can just look at the place. We're more than 1000 feet from any neighbors of the road. That can't be the problem. This charge is pure voodoo.

Too many jobs for zoning rules? No, contractors are not covered by the zoning rules. A technical issue, that the house and barn were on separate lots due to a planning board mistake? I fixed that at the county clerk. Fence not a structure? No, just read the zoning rules. Neighbors complaining? Nope: we submitted 47 letters of support and 100s of pro-dog petitions on signatures including from all the nearby neighbors and farmers who work the field around the dog camp.

The zoning officer for the town complains a lot, but mostly about my blog, reporting on criminal activity by his friends and himself. That is, he complains when he is not stalking my house at 5:30 in the morning or the middle of the night.

All the charges against me are trivial, impossible, false or just plain stupid, pursued at such great expense and involving the town board, planning board, zoning board, criminal court, zoning officer, and a big law firm all working together to reduce the county and town tax rolls and increase unemployment. There is no public interest in this matter. It's a witch-hunt. Imaginary charges, imaginary evidence and imaginary laws.

Why? After 15 hearings and $70,000 (on the town side: I spent more) if I did something wrong, it should fairly obvious what I did. So, what am I accused of? Anyone know? I don't.

The town is in open and clear violation of public officers law, hiring Whiteman Osterman and Hanna in an illegal executive session. Yet, I have to answer charge after charge, all false and malicious. In fact, officers in the town government are guilty of fraud, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, perjury and other crimes. I wrote all that up on my blog.

 Serious charged. Prove it? I would love to. Call the DA and tell her no one is above the law and she should give me appointment to hear me out, even if the accusations are against her friends and associates.

Do you think my reporting on the criminal activity of the town may be related to the absurdity of this process? That's what I will be arguing in Federal Court: my efforts to bring accountability in government provoked the corrupt town of Stuyvesant to lock arms and try to repress my rights to free speech, due process, equal protection, and confiscate my property.

And it didn't work.

The town of Stuyvesant is lawless. Don't take my word for it. Come to the hearing and see for yourself.

Stop corruption.

 Thanks, Will Pflaum

too big, ugly, depressing and expensive

To the editor:

 The Board of Supervisors have balked at committing to a $16 million project to buy and renovate the abandoned Walmart on Fairview Ave in the Town of Greenport. As well they might! They have been struggling among a bunch of bad choices for years.

Now, the sweetheart lease ( $30,000 per month rent! ) at 25 Railroad Ave is finally ending and better choices could be made. Why should the County embark on a $16 million project at Walmart that provides not one dime of services to needy people in our County? They shouldn't.

This $16 million will go to a real estate deal and a renovation project of a too big, ugly, depressing and expensive building and it will still be a too big, ugly, depressing and expensive building, with, maybe, a 20 year shelf-life if the roof is replaced. In fact, Walmart is so big that it's actually too big for DSS! The next desperate proposal was to make use of ALL this space, under one leaky roof, and drain some 24 County programs from Hudson--- Aging to Vets--- out to Walmart. Ideas were invented for more storage, garages, lunchrooms, fitness areas and three additional not-for-profits to be named later (in their dreams).

This was not exactly a welcome idea to Hudson City leadership.

Next, the pricetag for all these moves starts nudging $24 million according to Hudson Supervisor Bill Hughes. We haven't even started to figure in ongoing yearly expenses for heat, utilities, etc. for all this unneeded space. We haven't even started figuring the economic toll of the abandoned office space in Hudson. Time to think outside the Big Box!

This is the 21st Century. This is the era of laptops, fax machines, cell-phones, smart-phones and iPads. If the issue is really only space for DSS, let's put service providers out in the community where people live. There are plenty of existing models for home delivered services. I worked in DSS's Teen Parent Program which was such a model. Once a month I handed in bills and reports and met with a supervisor. Otherwise, I was out in the field with moms and babies, connecting them with housing, health clinics, daycare, parenting education, GED, shopping and jobs. I wasn't stuck in a cubicle pushing paper while stressed people with cranky children waited in line in a big, ugly, depressing , expensive building. Paperwork can be digitized and done from home, clients without computers can access the web at their school or library, supervisors can meet with caseworkers in various community centers and Town Halls around the County, staff training can be held at Columbia Greene Community College or provider agencies, auditors and billing staff can be tucked in with other agency billing offices. Caseworkers can hit the street and become real community workers. Let's spend our dwindling tax dollars getting important services to the needy and creating jobs in our community not on another Big Box.

 Sincerely, Lee Jamison

letter from an observer

Dear Ms. Yerick, the complaining neighbor.

I recently had the opportunity to watch the video of you accusing William Pflaum, owner of Glencadia Dog Camp of your being able to see his farm from the window in your home. However, when he asked you to provide a picture of that, you refused to do so. I know the reason you refused to do so. You would have incriminated yourself...

In other words you were lying. I have personally driven by your home and the Dog Camp and there is no way that with the trees where they are on your property and where any of those windows on the north side of your home are that you would be able to see the Dog Camp. In order to see his home with the kennels you would have had to have gone outside and used a pair of binoculars to see the intimate details of his business. Also, the long driveway leading to his residence is so far that it would be totally impossible for you to hear anything unless you were to hook up a system that would transmit the noise from his business to your house similar to a baby monitor....

…It is beyond me that a community would want to run out a business that will provide jobs for others in this horrendous economic condition the United States is in...

Thus, I agree with Mr. Pflaum, he should have every right to run a Dog Camp if he wishes. As previously stated, we are supposedly guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble specifically states that we have the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.

Sincerely,

Marlin J. Spellman

Untitled from glencadia on Vimeo.

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

story

dailydog.org

Story is about me but not on my blog.

And here are some old minutes.

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.

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.

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

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.

rain

Bean field or rice paddy?

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:

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.

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.