Below are excerpts from two unsigned emails making the rounds responding to an email by Mindy and calling on people to vote for the village.
There is word that at least one of them comes from the folks who run the Ambulance Corps. Lord, the Uncle hopes not. Who wants to place his life in the hands of a...ah gee, the Uncle is trying to cut back on name calling.
How's "dishonest poopiehead"?
Email number 1 makes a firm and absolute statement:
"It was never said that creating a village would prevent annexation."
Meanwhile email number 2 says:
"They are scared because it is true - a village will most likely prevent annexation. "
Do you think that the left foot in the mouth doesn't know what the right foot in the mouth is saying.
So email number 2 lies to us about a village offering protection from annexation. Email number 1 is far more creative, it lies to us by saying that no one ever lied to us by claiming that a village would protect against annexation.
I'd give the "Despicablele Piece of Dog Excrement" award to the author of number 1, just for the clever twist on an old lie, but author number 2 makes a sudden surge at the finish line by including this critique of an anti-village email: "..wouldn't be surprised if KJ put this email out on their own."
Yep. The upset winner is liar number 2. But good try number 1. Don't give up. There were still more goodies in your email and we'll take another look later in the week. And there's always the title Miss Congeniality.
And just remember boys and girls: If it's unsigned it's got to be true!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
From "Letters to the Editor" in the 8/2/06 TH-R
Village reconsidered
Two years ago, when I started the Village of Woodbury petition, I believed it was a good idea to help protect the zoning and character of our town. I've been agonizing over whether this decision is truly in the town's best interest.
It is difficult to anticipate all the variables that the town/village will encounter. This is a unique situation. In our case, the town and village would be one and the same with the exception of the Village of Harriman.
My major concern is the unpredictable tax burden that may impact the residents of Woodbury. I believe that the legal fees resulting from the transition will be significant.
Remember, the town government will still exist. There will be a town attorney and a village attorney. There will be ongoing legal fees and the possibility of double the lawsuits and liability. A village government will require facilities and personnel, which will result in additional taxes.
I have no confidence in the harmonious coexistence of two governments. The two governing bodies, duplication of effort, expense and services would negate any benefit of village incorporation. Additionally, technicalities in village law may bring about unintended results (i.e., dissolving of the Woodbury Fire District).
On the surface, the village may seem like a good idea, but once you start to dissect it, the negatives far exceed the one positive. The bottom line is that the coexistence of two governments will be problematic, costly and of no real benefit.
Michael Queenan
Highland Mills
Village of Woodbury Petitioner
This comment is two-fold and directed to Mr. Queenan himself. I am happy that Mr. Queenan seems to have formally cut the ties that he had with Ralph Caruso. I believe that Mr. Queenan was encouraged to spear-head the Village by Mr. Caruso, and then left hung-out to dry when the lawsuit was served. Since then, I think Mr. Queenan has proved that he will act in the BEST interests of the townspeople, and NOT Ralph Caruso. So in that respect Mr. Queenan, I applaud you.
However, I think that you should apologize to the taxpayers at large for hastily passing around the petitions to begin with. The concerns that you now outline in your letter are obvious, and should have been RESEARCHED before the petitions were ever even printed. I believe that the whole Village thing was a knee-jerk, self-serving reaction by Ralph Caruso and Don Siebold to look like heroes in the wake of the sale of Ace Farms, and also Ralph's unyielding effort to try to convince people to vote for him for what turned out to be his 2nd FAILED attempt at County Legislator. You and the rest of the petitioners cost the average taxpayer money, and I do take offense to that. I truly hope that moving forward, you will do your best to get ALL THE FACTS for each and every proposal or idea before jumping in, feet and wallet first!
Woodbury is destined to die, at least the part of the town near K.J. That would be everything along Mountain Rd, Ridge Rd and CR 105 and nearby streets. It will be absorbed into K.J. and there's nothing you can do about it.
You might as well sell now and get whatever measly price you can get for your homes. Eventually they'll go to K.J. for near nothing.
All the bickering among yourselves, personal attacks and paranoia have rendered Woodbury incapable of mounting any kind of defense.
Surrender now.
otkfznoooooh scary!!!!!!!!!!
oops i mean oooooooh scary!!!!
There is one thing you overlooked "Mr. Surrender now" we are sick & tired of your scare tactics,your illegal actions (qoute:A mistake was made) and your always getting what you want.Recent history should show the tide has changed.Woodbury has united. Why ? To be hateful? No. To keep what is ours. Ready for a fight? We are.
The last comment does have a point.KJ has lost the power of the vote in the last 2 years.There are more voters outside of KJ then within.They are in a panic. They do resort to messages of hate when anyone objects what they want.I too would fight to keep Woodbury the same. I also would like more info on (becoming a village) before the vote. From both sides
K.J. controls the destiny of Woodbury. There is nothing you can do about it. Every thing that happens within the community is determined by K.J. and the residents don't even realize it. Even the name calling, bickering and self-important posturing are for the betterment of K.J.
You and your leaders are puppets and guess whose hand is up your butts!
The leaders of K.J. laugh at you and your feeble attempts to resist their inevetible takeover. You are nothing more than the stinking dirt they scrape from their shoes.
My my my, someone's cheerful this evening. "Resistance is futile and all that.." Forgive my geeky reference, but when did this go from KJ to the Borg?
Regardless of what happens, I believe Woodbury won't go down without a fight. Granted, we may fight ourselves half the time, but there's plenty of fighting spirit left over. The recent outpouring of people over the Water Tower and 5 local laws more than proves this.
I don't need to look to KJ as the source of all the infighting, human nature seems more than adequate. Namely the human nature of a few self agrandizing individuals who've made it their goal to spread enough lies and confusion to try get themselves power. Could some be secretly working with outside forces? Sure, but the personalities involved are more than capable, and petty enough to play their games no matter who's egging them on.
The village is a VERY serious issue which people deserve to make an informed decision on. The firemen should be hosting a forum soon, so keep your ears peeled. And remember... if you don't feel you have enough facts, one can still vote against the current proposal to give Woodbury time to consider it more carefully.
Like I said. kj is panicing. Listen to the simple mind of a person trying to bully us.They have lost in the courts, they have lost in the county. Yet they say their leaders will "take over us" and we are"stinking dirt". I think it's time to forward this to the Herald Record.
Hey Ralph, Don, Carol etc etc...........A village just called, they're missing their idiot and wanted to know if you were available to fill in. Get a life!!!!!!!!
Hey now, they're probably tired from delivering those little packages to everyone with all that misinformation about the village. And what about that unsigned letter from our dear supervisor. I didn't hear that come up at any meeting, that Mr. Burke was going to send around a letter advocating the creation of a village???Or, maybe that's why he was at Ralph's house...putting together the final draft? What a convoluted mess Woodbury is in with him at the helm!! Did the rest of the board condone this? I think they all need to explain themselves!!!
I'm just curious to see if Burke will pay for the lawsuit against Woodbury that will be brought due to his public statement influencing the public to vote for the Village. At every meeting the Attorney, or Desiree, tells the Board they should not comment on issues that can result in lawsuits if commented on and here is our Supervisor publicly stating his views at the expense of the taxpayers. For shame!!!!!!!
what about that horse's ass mike queenan, who puts out a letter on 7/30/04 stating he is in favor of the village and urging people to vote for it. in it he states "a village of woodbury would help maintain the character, zoning, continuity of services and boundaries for Highland Mills and Central Valley". yet, he gets elected to public office in the Town and now he decides that it isn't in the town's best interest to have a village . how self-serving is that. do you think that people don't see through his selfish need to maintain power as a councilman. if you want to talk about lawsuits what about his recent letter (which contradicts his past letter). what about him using his public office and the town board to get his message out on television. please, lets hand out equal criticism here.
You are right and I am sorry. I forgot about Mike's letter. He should also have to pay is share when the Town is sued.
This letter was sent out by the Village of Kiryas Joel to the residents of woodbury. It was received in the mail today by a number of residents. here it is.
July 31, 2006
To our Woodbury neighbors: As mayof of your neighboring municipality, the Village of Kiryas Joel, I ask that you please take a moment to read this letter.
On August 10th you will be voting on the advisability of forming the Village of Woodbury. Since Kiryas Joel is the central theme of the debate, I'll ask you to please vote against this new village.
You may have heard rumors and rhetoric about the Village of Kiryas Joel and its residents. Please set them aside just long enough to ask yourself; if the Village of Kiryas Joel or its residents have ever harmed your family, your friends, your neighbors or yourself in any way?
True, Kiryas Joel is more densely populated than the rest of Orange County. That stems from a strong belief in family cohesion for whch village residents willingly opted out of large lots and on privacy, but only in their own community. Imagine how different Southern Orange County would be had Kiryas Joel residents coupled their belief in family cohesion with the prevailing sprawl. How much greater would Kiryas Joel's landmass have been? Would that have been preferable?
Even with the current setup Kiryas Joel does not negatively affect your school taxes; it has its own school district. Kiryas Joel does not affect your traffic; it has 90% less vehicles per capita then any other municipality, according to U.S. census. Kiryas Joel does not deplete anyone's sewer capacity; it shares its excess capacity with others. And no county resident was ever assaulted, robbed, stalked or murdered by a Kiryas Joel resident.
Are we different? No question about it. But diversity is what makes our nation so great. New York City touts China Town and Little Italy for completing its colorful mosaic. It would be nice if Orange County could do the same for its own mosaic.
People with ulterior motives will try to hoodwink you into voting impulsively for the formation of a new layer of bureaucracy, never mind that it's not in your best interest. I suggest that you ask them what, besides higher taxes, the Village of Woodbury will provide. Once you have the facts I trust you'll act in your own best interests and you will vote against it.
I appreciate it that you took the time to read this letter. I bgelieve that through direct communication we will jointly sher in an era of cooperation, coexistence and neighborly goodwill.
Sincerely,
Abraham Wieder, Mayor
It is important that all voters understand this village drive for what it really is. This is simply an effort of those who lost several elections and votes recently (County Legislature, Town Council) to have a "do-over". Ralph Caruso and his cronies want the voters to give them control of the most critical powers of town government, planning and zoning and taxes. Their "facts" have always been misleading with an "imaginary and unrealistic budget" that makes no sense. A new village, even with a supposedly part time mayor and trustees will have to have offices, phones, computers, insurance, file cabinets, copiers, and utilities. Are they going to sit in someone's basement or garage with folding tables and chairs? They are talking as if they already control the proposed village government by claiming the village will contract with the Town for services. Who knows who will run for the new Village government (although it should come as no surprise that those supporting the village idea will be its future candidates) and what these new officials will or will not do. Can anyone picture Caruso, Siebold and their crew working with most of the current Town Board? The town has a great deal of difficulty recruiting good candidates to run for public office. We have already rejected most of the people for town office who favor the village (Caruso, Reveille, Sullivan, Haviland). We are also moving to approve a Comprehensive Plan over the opposition of another village supporter and likely candidate, John Baranowski.
You will not get the chance to ask for a revote on the village after it is created and the supporters "change" their minds about working with the current Town government and then create a second layer of government and taxes. If they are willing to mislead us before the Village is even created (examples: phoney budget numbers, creating a village will prevent annexation), why would we hand over the future of our community to them? With so much wrong information and so much confusion, would it not be better to vote no for now? Then we could find out the truth and make an educated decision later---another village petition can be created and based on knowledge, not fear and misinformation from the very people asking you to "believe" them.
By supporting the creation of a village in your vote, you are really enabling these whom you have already rejected to take over the town planning and zoning authority and purse strings. Any village board made up of individuals such as these would most likely dissolve the current Planning Board and throw the Town into planning chaos.
A VOTE FOR A VILLAGE IS SIMPLY HANDING OVER WOODBURY TO THOSE WHOM YOU HAVE ALREADY REJECTED AS YOUR LEADERS. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THIS?
Well, for those of you who missed tonight's town board meeting (8/3/06), you certainly missed a wild one. FINALLY, the curtains have come down and we can now blatantly see that John Burke and the so called Democratic committee, (including that ditzy Grace "Oh I need to scratch my head and really look like much more of a moron than I actually am" Gerard and Bo "I tried Ralph, I really did" Haviland ARE actually in bed with Ralph Caruso. Even when the board went into closed session, Ralph and Bo were practically holding hands while talking to each other, and conjuring up how they would get out even more lies behind the podium. Truthfully, I think that John Burke should be impeached for what he has done. How dare he condone the behavior of the Citizens to Preserve Woodbury by putting a letter in that rag sheet. For the record Ralph, I catch any of your group near my garbage cans again, and I'll have you arrested for trespassing... just try me! I hope each and every one of you in Wodbury tune in to the repeats, and see for yourselves. The only problem is that the live showing shut-off at 9pm, just when Mike Queenan moved to close the meeting! I need to find out what happened! Can anyone finish my story??
How do you know what happened if you werent there?
FIRE DISTRICT Again, the truth in plain writing. This is retrieved from opinion of atty general of NY.
"A joint fire district is a fire district established by a town and a village located in that town (or by more than one town and village) to provide fire protection services in all or a portion of contiguous territory in the municipalities. See Town Law Section 189-a, 189-i; Village Law Section 22-2210. It is established by resolution of the Town Board and Village Board of Trustees, subject to permissive referendum. See Town law Section 189-a(2). However, once created, it is an independent political entity serving the property and property owners included within the district. See Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 2002-14; Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No 96-32. The affairs of a joing fire district are under the management of a board of fire commissioners, who are either appointed jointly by the town and village boards or ELECTED BY THE VOTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 11 OF TOWN LAW, as determined at the time the fire district is established. Town Law Section 189-e; see Op. Att'y Gen. (Inf.) No. 91-44.
Please stop saying that the fire district will be disolved if a village forms. It seems the fire district attorney is telling the fire district that they must be dissolved according to Town Law, (this statement was made at the last town board meeting) The Fire District should consider hiring a new attorney because the one they currently have doesn't know squat. He needs to review the opinions of the attorney general and town law. Please guys start doing your own homework and read the facts.
the meetings are aired live moron
August 03, 2006
KJ tries to stop village vote
By Chris McKenna
Times Herald-Record
cmckenna@th-record.com
Woodbury - Kiryas Joel is waging a last-minute effort to derail the referendum scheduled for next week on incorporating a village in neighboring Woodbury.
A lawyer for the Kiryas Joel group that bought 140-acre ACE Farm two years ago and owns other Woodbury tracts has asked an appeals court to reconsider its decision last month that allowed the vote to proceed after two years in limbo.
The case turns on the validity of objections that the Kiryas Joel landholders - known as Vaad Hakiryah - submitted in 2004 after Woodbury residents petitioned to create a village.
Their objections cited technical flaws in the petition. But on July 11, an Appellate Division panel dismissed them for an equally technical reason: They weren't served to Michael Queenan, the petitioner, until after the legal deadline.
Dennis Lynch, the attorney representing Vaad Hakiryah, argues in court papers that Queenan was served on time and that the judges "misapprehended or overlooked" undisputed facts supporting his position.
Woodbury's lawyer, David Engel, replied yesterday that Lynch's arguments are without merit.
"In the colloquial," he said. "I guess you could say he's playing the only card he's got."
The court has agreed to review written arguments in the case on Tuesday, two days before the referendum. There is no guarantee if the court will rule before voters are scheduled to go to the polls.
If the court agrees with Lynch, the case would return to state Supreme Court for a ruling on the substance of the technical objections he filed.
AGAIN MORE FACTS ON JOINT FIRE DISTRICT
Opinion 2000 - 21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This opinion represents the views of the Office of the State Comptroller at the time it was rendered. The opinion may no longer represent those views if, among other things, there have been subsequent court cases or statutory amendments that bear on the issues discussed in the opinion.
FIRE DISTRICTS -- Establishment of (joint fire district when village is within two towns)
TOWNS -- Fire Districts and Fire Protection (participation in establishment of joint fire district)
TOWN LAW §189-a; VILLAGE LAW §22-2210: In the case of the proposed formation of a joint fire district containing a village located within two towns, both towns must participate in the formation process.
You ask whether, in the case of the proposed formation of a joint fire district containing a village located within two towns, both towns must participate in the formation process.
Town Law, article 11-A (§189-a et seq.) and Village Law, article 22-A (§22-2210 et seq.) contain provisions relating to the establishment of joint fire districts in towns and villages. Section 189-a(1) of the Town Law provides as follows:
The town board of a town or the town boards of more than one town, and the board of trustees of an incorporated village or the boards of trustees of more than one incorporated village, as defined in the village law, located in said town or towns are hereby authorized to establish in such town or towns and village or villages a joint fire district for the purposes hereinafter stated and in the manner hereinafter provided, provided all of the territory in such joint fire district shall be contiguous. (emphasis added).
Village Law §22-2210 contains substantially the same provisions. Subdivision 2 of section 189-a of the Town Law sets forth joint meeting, joint public hearing and permissive referendum requirements applicable to the establishment of the joint fire district by "participating municipalities."
By their express terms, Town Law §189-a(1) and Village Law §22-2210 authorize one or more towns, and one or more villages located in "said" town or towns, to establish joint fire districts in "such" town or towns. This language suggests that, in order for a village to be included within a joint fire district, all towns within which the village is located must participate in the formation process. This conclusion is further supported by subdivision 4 of Town Law §189-a, which establishes a procedure for extension of a joint fire district by "each town and … each village in which any portion of the district as proposed to be extended is located …" (emphasis added). Thus, if a village located within more than one town is included within a joint fire district as proposed to be extended, all towns within which the village is located must participate in the extension process.
In addition, consistent with the conclusion that all towns within which a village is located must participate in the formation of the joint district, section 189-e of the Town Law provides that initial appointments of joint fire district commissioners prior to the first elections of commissioners "shall be made by the town board or, if the district includes territory in more than one town, by the town board of all of the towns …" (emphasis added). We also note that there is nothing in the provisions discussed above suggesting that the word "town" as used therein, in the absence of any limiting language, is intended to apply only when a portion of the town outside the village is to be included in the proposed joint fire district (cf. Town Law §2, defining a town; compare Town Law §170[1], generally authorizing towns to establish fire districts outside any incorporated village; Town Law §189-a[2][b], [3][b], specifically referencing the town outside village for purposes of posting notices).
Accordingly, it is our opinion that, in the case of the proposed formation of a joint fire district containing a village located within two towns, both towns must participate in the formation process1.
December 14, 2000
William N. Young, Jr., Esq.
Town of Monroe;
Villages of Harriman, Monroe and Kiryas Joel
1. We also have been asked whether that portion of a joint fire district located within a village may be removed from the district if the village were to become a city. We note that Town Law §182 sets forth a petition procedure for the exclusion of any portion of a fire district that is incorporated into a city. We note also that Town Law §189-a[4][e] provides that the provisions of Town Law, article 11, to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of article 11-A, shall apply to the "extension, operations and maintenance" of any joint fire district provided for by section 189-a. It is arguable that, notwithstanding the specific reference in section 189-a(4)(e) to "extension," but not to the "diminution," the provisions of section 189-a(4)(e) make the petition procedures of section 182 applicable to joint fire districts. However, since it is apparent that a city may be created only by an act of the State Legislature (see, e.g., City of New York v Village of Lawrence, 250 NY 429), we believe the issue of the continued inclusion of a newly-incorporated city in a joint fire district generally would be most appropriately clarified in the act creating the city.
The above law on forming a Fire District does not pertain to this situation. The boundaries are not coterminous as ours would be. There can be no fire district, unified or otherwise due to the coterminous boundaries.
God bless us all as this is better than Comedy Central. The facts will come out shortly. Mr. Caruso realizes that his efforts are valiant, albeit for the wrong reason. I applaud him and his followers as they are sticking together. Either way, Woodbury must come together and rapidly after this vote. Much is on the horizon including increased taxation, how do you handle numerous districts disappearing including a district that pays for some of the members of our current Town Police Department, etc. Everyone must buckle up and be prepared but without one voice, we are doomed. The lack of credible communication with facts (previous info posted regarding joint fire district for example is wrong due to the word coterminous) is unbelievable. Why didn't Mr. Caruso go to the Fire District to discuss his plans? Just maybe there might have been a greater surge towards what appears to be the inevitable. Woodbury must unite! Just thoughts from an average Joe--
And I don't mean the post above. That person is correct in the fact that the word coterminous is missing from all of the legal stuff previously entered. Thanks for reading from Average Joe--
Post a Comment