Photo News
To the editor:
One can only feel sympathy for John Baranowski, who, in a letter to the editor last week, appeared to be wracked by a paralyzing fear of the future. Let me reassure him that, as is the case with so many frightened people, his terror is created solely by his ignorance of the subject at hand and that by learning the facts he will be able to put his mind at ease.
For example, he believes that the five local laws recently re-enacted by the Woodbury Town Council “can be - and certainly will be - applied to every large vacant parcel of land.” Knowledge of those laws would show Mr. Baranowski that at most only nine other parcels of land could even be proposed to the Town Board for such development.
He goes to on speculate that the laws could be applied to the “thousands (of acres) of Arden House.” He is unaware that the codicil governing the bequest of Arden House would make this impossible.
He is fearful that the senior housing that will be created will be “high-cost, densely built (and) semi-attached,” and that there are “only weak provision for holding the developer’s feet to the fire to actually sell those units to senior citizens.”
In truth, the laws enable builders to erect housing for seniors at lower cost than would otherwise be possible. The density of the senior units will be four per acre - which is no change from the previous law - and there will no attached units at all. The provisions setting these units aside for seniors have been applied in many other localities with a history of holding up.
He believes that approximately one unit per acre (senior housing aside) constitutes “high density.” While this is a bizarre definition of high density, Mr. Baranowski’s confusion is understandable. Ralph Caruso has so often recited that phrase that many gullible people have been taken in.
I note that while he complains about the placement of the entrance to the senior housing section of the WP3 project, he fails to mention that his own home is just there. This omission leads me to suspect that “NIMBY” plays some role in Mr. Baranowski’s objections. That being the case, I would urge him to find the maturity to face his own selfishness, an emotion all humans experience. I would hope that the sooner that he comes to grips with his own humanity, the easier it will be for him to accept reality and conquer his fears.
Jonathan Swiller
Highland Mills
12 comments:
Updated: Friday, July 28, 2006
Why Woodbury needs a village
To the editor:
I believe that by voting for the Village of Woodbury you are providing the best defense against the inevitable changes that will most likely occur. As a former councilwoman, I strongly supported the five local laws recently reenacted. This was the first step towards maintaining our current style of housing.
The second step is to incorporate as a single village. By voting yes for the current incorporation, you minimize the impact of future zoning and boundary changes to the territory we live in.
A perfect example is Kiryas Joel. Their own incorporation allowed them the ability to build as they chose without complying with Monroe’s zoning. They built according to their own standards.
KJ is up front about their need for high density housing. They need additional lands to continue to grow. It is very likely that they will either attempt to annex those lands into their existing village. If they can’t, they may choose to create another village in Woodbury.
I believe if KJ created a village within Woodbury, you would quickly see other villages popping up throughout Woodbury. Highland Mills, close to KJ “2,” would most like choose to create its own village to prevent further encroachment. Central Valley may then decide they need to create their own village to protect their interests.
Not only would we now have three to four villages throughout Woodbury, only certain villages would contain the tax ratables. Most of the business district would be centralized in Central Valley, where most of the money would be. How would this impact the taxes of the other newly formed villages? What would they have for revenue?
The best way to prevent this dissection is to vote yes for the current village proposal on Aug. 10. This village would prevent any future villages from popping up because you cannot create a new village within an existing village. This proposal would allow all the revenue to continue to be shared equally by all. It would be closest scenario to maintaining what we currently have.
While it is truly unfortunate that we are faced with this dilemma, faced with it we are. To sit back and do nothing is to allow forces beyond our control to control us. Working out the details of how a single village would operate within the Town of Woodbury is a heck of a lot easier than three to four villages vying for their piece of the pie. Oh, and let’s not forget that the village with the most inhabitants would control the vote. Just look at Monroe.
We need to be proactive and seize our own destiny. We can do that by voting yes for the village incorporation on Aug. 10.
Colleen Campbell
Central Valley
12:19 AM
If the folks who run KJ wanted to create a new village in Woodbury they would need, first, to propose the borders of this new village.
There would have to be 500 or more residents within the proposed village. There would then be a vote by all eligible voters among those 500 or more residents.
There is not currently any area within Woodbury, containing 500 residents of which a majority eligible to vote would be willing to form a new village to be controlled by Szegedin's allies.
Many more homes could be purchased within Woodbury and many others could be built on ACE Farms. And eventually there could be such an area, but it would take time. And during that time we would all see that this was becoming a possibility and we could make an informed and reasoned decision about what we wanted to do.
For two years this petition was on hold and we ignored the whole question.
Actually we ignored many questions. Here's one: can a village have more than one sewer district? If not, all of us who are not hooked into the existing sewer system will be inside the village's single sewer district and that means that even if you have no water and sewer hookup, you will still be taxed as if you did.
There are many other questions that we should be asking and answering.
If we vote yes we will be locked in. If we vote no, we can create a new petition any time that we wanted.
And this time, we can use the time to ask and answer the important questions about what we are getting ourselves into.
Bloom says that forming a village will prevent annexation - it won't.
Burke says that with a village we would control our zoning - we already do.
If there are good reasons for forming a village, why do these people keep misinforming us.
If the truth won't sell us on the idea, maybe it's not a great idea.
"the cost of establishing, improving, extending and operating village water and sewer systems may be borne by general village taxes, special assessments upon the properties benefited, user fees or a combination thereof (Village Law Section 11-1108)" An intelligent answer to your question, and a truthful one. I wouldn't want to be sitting on a village board that tried to assess fees on residents who didn't benefit from the service. but, according to you only the worst can come out of this village board. it seems you are not as unbiased as you seem. it seems that you have only one interest and that is to see the dissidents in power. it seems that you will go to any length to make sure they are in power. what's in it for you. you talk about bloom selling his house. what about mindy prosperi and iris sandow. they both sold their houses to kj. yet, they stand up and say what a bad idea the village is. how much are they getting paid to see the village fail. how much are you getting paid to see the village fail.
mindy prosperi and iris sandow both sold their houses and they have the nerve to speak out on this!!!!!!! How much did they sell it to KJ for and are they now on the payroll?
I looked up Benedict Arnold and now see the names of mindy prosperi and iris sandow. They went from putting a sign on the home "not for sale" to so long suckers we sold our house for big money and can live there for years while we help KJ get more land and dupe the people of Woodbury.
Dont forget Swiller , he is tring to get this village shot down so he can help Izzy Brock get a village. Do you think we are dumb you all sell your homes and get to live live there for free and think we are stupid. The cat is now out of the bag we are being scammed by Swiller , Prosperi and Sandow.People of Woodbury please dont fall for this.
I post my views, and I believe enough in what I say to sign my name.
This whole Village proposal is yet another lame attempt to gain political control by a band of people that have continually failed in the past. Get a life losers and move on, and out!! Please!
P.S. Anyone who tells you that this will not increase your taxes is an out and out liar.
The answer is quite simple- vote NO.
Dear Uncle:
Anyone (those of us in our right minds) who wants to vote NO village must vote "against incorporation"
That is how the ballot will read
We can talk all we want about "little villages," but her letter continues to ignore the lack of protection from annexation, the fact it would likely WEAKEN woodbury in an annexation battle, and the fact that annexation would almost certainly be easier and cheaper for KJ with the exisiting lands already being bought up on our border.
Add to that that the all the other main proponants of this village are in favor of a moratorium on building which would block those 5 laws, leave huge tracts of land vulnerable and undo the whole other first of her strategy, and this just gets even funnier.
But in the end, this is really no laughing matter... and when it comes down to it, a few short weeks is NOWHERE near enough time for the people of Woodbury to fully investigate all of the sweeping (and likely expensive) ramifications of this village.
Vote NO to incorperation, and for Woodbury to actually know what its getting itself into before it leaps.
Once again Jimmy Swiller has expounded a partial truth and wants everyone to believe its the whole. That can either be called marketing....or propaganda.
Agreed, it takes up to 500 people in an area to petition for a village ORRRRR it takes landowners who own a percentage (sorry I don't hve the exact at my fingertips right now) of the land within the proposed village area to petition for a village.
Based on that scenario, two to three individuals could make a village.
Request someone do the research on the actual percentage but I AM sure that this second scenario exists in village law.
Curious George
Post a Comment