Most discussions about the August 10th vote on forming a Village of Woodbury revolve around voting YES or voting NO. Those aren’t the real choices available.
The real choices are YES or NOT AT THIS MOMENT.
A yes vote will drastically, and most likely permanently, change our form of government and will raise our taxes. It could easily lead to drastic changes in our fire department, our police department and all other municipal services. It will have profound effects on the people who supply those services. The village will have the right to wipe the slate and bring in new workers under new contracts. IT WILL NOT PREVENT ANNEXATION.
A no vote does not prevent us from re-petitioning and creating a village at any time that we choose. There will be a one year period during which this EXACT SAME village can not be brought forward. But this proposed village was poorly drawn to begin with, incorporating parts of the state park. We could create a new petition, leaving out the parkland, and bring it to vote at any time that we wanted.
At tonight’s town board meeting it became clear that there are many unanswered questions on what forming a new village will mean. There are only three weeks until the vote.
This petition was on hold in the courts for years - that time might have been used to get answers to the public, it wasn’t. The village faded from our thoughts. Now it’s back and we have very little time to do much of anything.
To quote Don Siebold, Darlene Reveille, John Baranowski, John Burke, Bob Donnelly and all the others in Ralph Caruso’s group, when they were talking about the Brodsky project: "What’s the rush?"
If we vote yes we have made a final decision for good or ill.
If we vote no all that we are saying is NOT AT THIS MOMENT.
What it comes down to is this. You are being asked if you want to make a giant change in the way that you live. Your choices are either "yes" or "let me think about it."
Jonathan Swiller
16 comments:
Mr. Swiller:
I think you make some very good points and these will be ones those of us who will be campaigning actively against this "Village of Nothing" as I like to call it will have to stress.
People will not understand the magnitude of this boondoggle unless it is explained in the clearest of language. If we make this move to create this village it will have serious repercussions on how we are governed. There is a reason why there are not allot of "town-wide" villages in this state. They make no sense. Sometimes if there are town-wide villages it is because an existing village and an existing town merged together, this I believe is the case with the Town/Village of Harrison in Westchester County.
Three weeks is not enough time to debate these issues. Especially when those pushing this village are doing absolutely nothing to inform us as to why we need this.
Their initial arguments about annexation were proven wrong.
Now, one of the organizers, Don Siebold, who does not understand the historical nature for why villages are formed in the first place, said recently in the THR that this is to stop the formation of smaller villages.
We’ll, Don, that’s the reason for forming villages! It allows people in an individual area to form a community to protect the interest of, or provide services for that particular area. This was the case with the recent successful vote on the creation of South Blooming Grove. People in South Blooming Grove share our concern about Kiryas Joel. They, unlike people in Northern or Western sections of Blooming Grove have a higher stake in what happens in their particular part of town when it comes to annexation or zoning issues with regards to KJ.
Allowing the creation of South Blooming Grove allows those with the greatest stake to have a larger say in the process. It does not give than any “more” power, just a greater control over their destiny.
If Don and others were pushing an effort to create a “Village of Highland Mills” for the sake of argument, to allow those closest to KJ, and under the greatest threat for annexation or the creation of high density KJ housing greater control, I might very well join him/them in such an effort. A village for those who live west of Rte 32 and north of 105 might be in the interests of those who live in that area. I say might, and it is an idea worth studying. In the end I don’t think it would be prudent.
Unlike in Blooming Grove, Woodbury’s population is pretty concentrated to a specific area (mostly because of Palisades Park and West Point) Therefore, most of the town is kind of in the same boat together on this, and I believe our current officials are aware of the problems we face and will work together to protect our interests.
I strongly encourage the electorate of this town to think of the ramifications of this "Village of Nothing". That's all we will get is nothing...we'll not quite...we will get something...a larger tax bill to pay for this.
Even the barest bones of villages still cost money.
Thanks Jim.
For a number of reasons I think that the South Blooming Grove move may have been a bit counrterproductive, but what bothered me most was that at the final forum sponsored by the South Blooming Grove Home Owners Association, one of the speakers said that creating village would prevent annexation.
That is the single most frequently heard piece of misinformation.
People must understand that having a village will in no way prevent annexation.
Yeah i agree, i think i heard something similar mentioned on News 12 during the vote on South Blooming Grove.
The annexation issue wil have to be fully explained to the voters once again.
I think that I should point out that the reason there is only three weeks to debate the issues is that Village Law required that I schedule an election within 40 days from the decision being rendered. I was required to set a date by Law and did so. I thought I would add this to the information out there so that there is no misconception with regards to the limited time to inform the public. Thank you.
I think we all agree Desiree that you gave us the maximum amount of time that you legally could....and we are thankful for that
Its just unfortunate that there is such a limited period of time to debate and educate the public on such an important matter
I read the post by Desiree,(thanks for the info)- who out there would even think that she trying to set up the election in a rush so that there would be little chance of getting the information out? Off course she has to follow the law when she sets everything up!
The Heroes? Of Woodbury
There are many who loudly proclaim
That a village will keep things the same
From Ralph, Don and all their crew
They really have no idea what to do
“We are your heroes, look to us!”
“Let’s all jump on the village bus!”
But did you all examine the facts?
Or are your heads just full of earwax?
It is really venom that they spout
And their “advice” will leave us out
All jokes aside they will create more troubles
Imagine a village run by Mr. Bubbles!
Ralph wants to rule us like we are Borg
And Woodbury will be Ralphcaruso.org
Revenge will be his as he plots and schemes
While all you homeowners give up your dreams
We don’t want to create Caruso’s village
And leave ourselves open to economic pillage
So to Mr. Baronowski, Mrs. Mullolly and Mr. Reveille
Why don’t you all just go to hell?
Desiree,
You have been given a huge job with a timetable mandated by law.
In a very short time you have pulled together a town-wide election, arranged for a voting place, voting machines, checked and double checked all the laws that apply.
No one feels that the limit on time is your choice.
We all owe you thanks for what you have done.
why is desiree posting on this partisan blog?
can anyone say conflict of interests?
it is clear that brodsky is uncle betty.
it is also clear that the "not one inch" crowd wants to ghettoize the hasidic jews of orange county.
why else would they try to hedge them in, stunt their natural growth, and deny them water?
for shame.
Dear B the B
You make some good points..oh..wait a sec, my mistake, you're an idiot.
Once again, asking that the Village of Kiryas Joel respect their neighbors, and control their growth LIKE EVRY OTHER COMMUNITY DOES is considered racist and anti-semetic. If Woodbury ran out of water and wanted to keep building what do u think we would be told? Do u think Larkin and Diana would be going crazy to find us a water source.
The answer NO!!!!
Bob the builder, why dont you stop building over there in KJ for awhile, solve your water problems and growth issues...i have a new word for your vocabulary "MORATORIUM" I would love to hear that word uttered once by a KJ offical. We are gonna have a moratorium on building becuase we have run out of the resources neccesary to survive and we cant keep burdening our neighbors...wouldnt that be a nice change.
What was all that cheering about in Woodbury?
To the editor:
Last week, Woodbury Town Board member Michael Aronowitz reversed his 2005 decision and voted to approve both the Woodbury Suburban housing plan and the five town laws that enable it and any number of other possible massive residential developments in the town. The board’s action was required after a judge ruled against Town procedures and sent the matter back for re-vote.
Upon the 4-1 vote in favor (Supervisor John Burke voting “No”), a number in the audience let go with loud applause and cheers.
But what did they have to cheer about?
For one, they may have been pleased that, while so many Orange County communities are busy establishing strong and sensible policies and practices to preserve open space, Woodbury has, by the board’s vote, signed over responsibility for setting aside “forever-green” lands on its largest open parcels to developers - all part of an open space law that is muddy, unenlightened, and weak on several counts.
And consider this: At the very moment that Sheila Conroy, former Woodbury town supervisor and once the driving municipal force behind Woodbury Suburban and its laws, was speaking before the County Legislature with an appeal to prevent the construction of water storage tanks on county parkland (Gonzaga) in Woodbury, the Woodbury Town Board was sitting down to approve Ms. Conroy’s open-space law that, in specific terms, encourages developers, working in concert with the town, to use a development’s dedicated open space for accessory components and structures - including, you may guessed, water tanks!
Or, supporters of Woodbury Suburban may be pleased that the senior housing component of the plan and its enabling laws bubbled to the surface without any recent analysis of the town’s need for high-cost, densely built, semi-attached senior units-and with only weak provision for holding the developer’s feet to the fire to actually sell those units to senior citizens.
Maybe they are pleased that these town laws can be - and certainly will be - applied to every large vacant parcel of land. In theory, that includes the acres - in the thousands - of Arden House property owned by Columbia University; acres whose future is now cloudy as Columbia prepares to leave the property behind.
And maybe the cheering residents are pleased that the town board nearly unanimously rejected the uncharacteristically strong rebuke that the county’s expert planners brought against the suitability of the Woodbury Suburban plan.
Maybe the cheers were for an entrance and exit road for Woodbury Suburban’s 450 or more homes that will be placed directly across the street from the main entrance to Monroe-Woodbury High School.
Maybe supporters like the idea of how a bloated, dense development is going to succeed in a softening housing market.
And, again, maybe the cheering section was pleased to be reminded that the developer of Woodbury Suburban was encouraged to keep the bed warm by picking up the tab for the town’s portion of the defense of the lawsuit brought against Woodbury Suburban and its laws - and that the town would have been pleased to have that developer pay for an appeal of the lawsuit had the Board vote not gone as it did last week.
There is reason to cheer, too, if you are pleased that a development plan concocted with the idea of protecting the town has a good chance of being its ruin anyway. And cheer if you like the idea that your elected officials have their feet on the accelerator while someone else is steering the wheel.
For those who were not cheering on the evening of July 6 - for those who had instead cheered Mr. Aronowitz last November when he voted against Woodbury Suburban and its high-density laws - his declaration the other evening that “things have changed” since his first vote on this matter is a puzzling and disappointing one. The spectacle of his mumbled vote was remarkable mostly for how it lacked conviction. He said not one audible word about what had changed other than his conviction, and he hasn’t said so since, even though I directly asked him to make himself accountable to the community.
But in Woodbury, Mr. Aronowitz might be forgiven for thinking no one could hear him, anyway, above the cheers of those who must now be happy to live with the consequences of a bankrupt, ill-fitting strategy for the community’s future.
Talk about a "puzzling and disappointing" explanation for a vote, did you see Burke at the last Town Board Meeting try to explain why he voted against senior housing?
He didn't even know what he'd voted against.
He kept talking about surveys and WP3 that had nothing to do with the law he had voted on.
How come Baranowski and Reveille, who keep demanding answers from Aronowitz on why he voted like he did don't care at all that Burke had no idea what he was voting on?
bob the builder said...
why is desiree posting on this partisan blog?
can anyone say conflict of interests?
it is clear that brodsky is uncle betty.
it is also clear that the "not one inch" crowd wants to ghettoize the hasidic jews of orange county.
why else would they try to hedge them in, stunt their natural growth, and deny them water?
for shame.
"ghettoize the hasidic jews of Orange County" are you joking? No one is forcing hasidic Jews to live in the dumps that they live in now, it is something called choice! And that is one of the biggest objections to the way you (Bob the Builder) and the other hasidic peoples live! We don't want that trash next to us or in our communities. We dont object to you as people, just the way you live! The is exactly the point WE DONT WANT GHETTOES,YOU IDIOT!!!!
Not for anyone!!!!
Is "Bob the Builder" that Lawrence fella from the Lew Beach project??
The same Lawrence who accused the entire room of being Nazi's at the County water tower meeting, then was witnessed tripping the man who refuted him as he returned to his seat, nearly getting kicked out as a result? I wouldn't be surprised. The man is an excellent spokesperson for the insane policies he supports.
By the way, has anyone noticed that these 720+ word letters have made it into both the Record and Photo News (despite the both having a posted 200 word limit?). And Reveille's 500+ word letter the week before. I certainly hope the papers intend to give rebuttals equal space, or there will be some answering to do. As it is, I have to wonder what letters DIDN'T make it in this week, because of Baranowski's "bloated" comments. Ironic, given what he's accusing the town board of allowing.
Post a Comment