"Caruso, who led the charge for the village formation and has been a combatant in recent development battles, made clear he regards the election at least partly as an opportunity to settle scores with a Town Board that until now has held all the cards. "
Okiedoke, so much for a close working relationship between the village and the town.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Woodbury mayoral candidates face off
October 30, 2006
By Chris McKenna
Woodbury — Three of the four candidates running for mayor met in a debate today that touched on Woodbury's volatile zoning issues, its partisan bickering and the uncertain costs that lie ahead as their new village comes to life.
The debate took place at a Times Herald-Record office in Blooming Grove at the request of Ralph Caruso, a mayoral candidate who — along with his slate of trustee contenders — boycotted a forum last week organized by OCEAN, the Woodbury citizens group, and moderated by the Record.
Caruso was joined yesterday by David Sutz and Anthony Cirigliano, both of whom took part in last week's debate. Stephanie Berean-Weeks, the fourth candidate for mayor, declined to participate in what she referred to as "Mr. Caruso's closed-door tactics."
In addition to the mayoral candidates, eight people are running for four trustee seats on Thursday in the first Village of Woodbury election. The village, created by voters in August, is 36.8 square miles and encompasses all of the Town of Woodbury except its portion of Harriman.
Caruso, who led the charge for the village formation and has been a combatant in recent development battles, made clear he regards the election at least partly as an opportunity to settle scores with a Town Board that until now has held all the cards.
It's too late to stop 451-home Woodbury Junction. But Caruso said that, if elected, he would oppose granting similar accommodations for Legacy Ridge — a 281-unit project on the opposite side of town — and abandon the proposed Comprehensive Plan on which the town has spent at least $150,000.
He also said he wants the new village to exclude from its zoning rules — which will replace the town zoning — the cluster-housing law that applied to both Woodbury Junction and Legacy Ridge.
"We would not adopt it, so it would not become part of the village law," Caruso said.
Sutz and Cirigliano both said they would defer to the wishes of residents on both the cluster-housing law and Legacy Ridge. They also agreed they wanted to use at least parts of the Comprehensive Plan.
Both men used their appearance to raise their profiles in a caustic race dominated until now by Caruso's group and the rival CommUNITY Party, each of which is fielding full slates with five candidates.
Sutz underscored his political independence and questioned if the candidates on the Caruso and CommUNITY Party slates would recuse themselves from votes involving town employees to whom they are related. (At least three have such ties.)
Caruso, who has come under attack for the information he and other supporters put in their literature prior to the village referendum, stuck by his claims, including the modest $153,979 budget he projected for the village.
Sutz and Cirigliano weren't buying it.
"I don't think it's a realistic budget," Sutz said.
Told that the budget included $52,530 altogether for consultant fees, Cirigliano questioned whether that would even cover the attorney fees required to get a new village in motion.
"I don't see any attorney working for $50,000," he said. "At least the first year, it has to be lot more than that, especially if there are zoning issues."
Have comments or questions on this story?
Tell us!
at least caruso has made some definitive statements about his plans for zoning
i agree with him that its time to end special perks for developers who want to spread cluster housing all over woodbury
It's funny how those five local laws were passed a year ago and then confirmed over the summer and yet there has not been a stampede of developers rushing in to buy lands in Woodbury and be considered for the new cluster law.
Why?
The answer is what the town board has been saying all along!
1. Very few lands in Woodbury meet the critiria of 125 acres.
2. If it does meet the land criteria the developer has to provide municipal water and sewer.
3. They have to donate 20 percent of the land back to the town or maybe it's 30 percent, not sure but it's alot of land. Most builders would rather go under the Town's older cluster law and build the same amount of homes on less property and leave the rest as open space. The Greens of Woodbury is a good example of clustering.Those lots have plenty of trees and open space surrounding them. If you look at that development it is one of the best and most attractive in woodbury, because of the clustering.
Urban Sprawl is ugly and not wanted by most people anymore. Ralph's views are outdated and I'm told it's because he can not adjust to change. What he proposes allows the developer to cut down every tree and the whole 2-3 acre lot remains bare except for the house! It takes 20 years for trees to mature and the neighborhood to look wooded.
The other nice thing about clustering(I live in Brigadoon, the first section that is heavily clustered)is we have a real sense of our neighborhood. Everyone that lives on my cul-de-sac LOVES it!
Who the hell is Ralph Caruso or Burke's daughter to tell people how to live!
Other municipalities do not encourage Urban Sprawl because it is ruining communities from a planning sense. Woodbury should not move in a backwards position either!
CommUNITY Party Mayoral Candidate Stephanie Berean-Weeks will be a guest this morning (10/31) on WTBQ AM 1110 on the Bossman & Lorraine Show. The show starts after the 9AM news on 1110 on your AM dial or listen live on the internet at wtbq.com Call in with your questions at 651-1110
Hopefully, people will finally wake up and see what Caruso and his team are all about. Even in a closed door debate that Caruos forced in order to avoid public exposure, one can see that he does not care about getting the facts straight. His budget is a joke and yet he persists with it. He will not get along with the Town Board--he must dominate and control. And guess who pays for that--you and me through our taxes. He will set us back 20- 30 years with his planning and zoning ideas--- to what Rockland and other areas look like--sprawl. And that kind of development increases our taxes because roads are longer and more costly to maintain as are the school buses that must run through them to pick up kids. Perhaps if he went for some education and training in planning, he would learn what it is all about. I have lived in both worlds and clustering has real advantages when done attractively. How can you believe someone who distorts the facts and blantantly lies about the budget?
It's all about settling the score!
From seeker of facts: almost 1 1/2 weeks ago I posted on here that due to all the controversy and confusion about those 5 zoning laws, I was going to do the unthinkable and actually read them for myself. I have done so and what I read is very revealing.
2 of the laws relate to senior housing also called active adult living. The Town already has an older senior housing law which provides for such housing to be built on lands up to 20 acres at a density of 4 units per acre. They can be attached in various combinations. They are rental only.
The new law provides for the same density of 4 units per acre, but the main difference is that seniors can now own their units instead of rent only. It also says that water and sewer must be provided--makes sense with 4 units per acre. And now the maximum amount of land they can be built on is 50 acres---I think because more land might be needed since these units can be detached or double units rather than multi attached. It would also provide, perhaps, for small yards for seniors, I would suspect.
Now, the last thing is very interesting---if I am reading this correctly, no land in Town is actually zoned for this. You have to apply for it and meet certain requirements and then undergo environmental review.
The second law involves that the project near the high school applied to have this senior zoning and met the requirements and was granted the right to build senior owned housing.
Now those opposing these 2 laws have called them incentive zoning or bonuses for developers, but this does not appear to be that at all. They simply allow for seniors to own homes rather than rent them at the same 4 unit per acre density, but on up to 50 acres rather than 20 acres.
What is so terrible about that? I would want that choice as a senior. In order to see if Woodbury was being overly generous, I also looked at Cornwall, Monroe and Warwick and Goshen--they all have rules for senior housing and their densities are much higher than 1/4 acre zoning. I am confused about why Supervisor Randazzo of Cornwall agreed to contribute to a lawsuit against Woodbury over senior housing laws that are less dense than in his town-- Cornwall allows 8 units per acre and more and has many senior housing units with more on the way.
Are these people anti-senior? Have the group opposing these 2 laws actually read them or just listened to those opposing them and jumped on the band wagon? Why are we being lied to aboutthe senior housing law?
Why are seniors in Woodbury not being allowed to have the same rights to stay here in housing designed for them when other towns around us are allowing this. Are we saying, once you are a senior, we don't care about your housing needs?
Aren't Caruos, Sullivan, Burke and others opposing this seniors themselves? Maybe they want to stay in their existing homes, but others should have choices. What is really going on here? I can find nothing wrong with the senior law --in fact, 4 units per acre seems very low compared to other towns. Why are we being misled?
To Seeker of Facts: Congratulations on doing something that those opposing the laws have clearly not done---read them for yourself and form your own opinion. You might have missed the meeting where a man asked Supervisor Burke the same question---why did you vote against the senior housing law.
Burke said because it was written for Brodsky. The man said no it didn't--it applies to any land that can meet the requirements and is for senior housing only. Burke finally admitted that he might have misunderstood it and might not have read it very well. He clearly did what you did not do---read it without preconceived bias and make up one's own mind.
And guess who is the leader of the group that misrepresents the senior housing law? Preservation Candidate for Mayor Caruso. Ask any of them if they have read the law AND THEN ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. I am not a betting person, but I would bet on this--just as Supervisor Burke cannot explain it, neither can they.
They are BLIND followers, not seekers of facts.
Hey, seeker of facts--- now that the myth about senior housing is lifted, how about looking at the other laws?
And to think that our tax dollars went to fight a lawsuit against seniors owning their own homes. So once we are seniors, we can only live in rental units which won't give us any tax benefit and help build up a nest egg for when we might want to do our second retirement and move south or west? How dare those opposing senior housing say we can only live in rental units. I lived in an apartment when first starting out and wanted to own my house, not pay a landlord. Shame on these people.
Wished this was out there before the last election. It seems that some people have been lying to us for some time and now that light is being shed on this, we are seeing the sleezy side of politics. Anything to win is their motto.
Sleezy and insulting. Does anybody remember Bob Donnelly's (then head of the Democractic Committee and Caruso follower)letter to the newspaper a few months ago in which he said that the people at the second vote on the Brodsky project in July were not towns people who thought the project was not bad, but construction workers and others who would gain from this project. I was there and saw many neighbors and town people there that night. Some of us had been dubbed before last year's election, but realized that the project had some benefits for the Town. That is how little they think of us--putting us down when we do not agree with them. Poor seniors who fell for it too.
This was posted on the
www.villageofwoodbury.info
October 29, 2006
Valley Forge Residents
Yesterday, the Community Party Candidates gave out a flyer filled with untrue and misleading statements and information. The Preservation Party candidates want to expose these lies and clarify the information.
Valley Forge Sewer Treatment Plant
#1) “Within two to three years, a new modern Sewer Treatment Plant, servicing your community, costing between $2,000,000 & 2,500,000 must be constructed.”
Fact): These costs stated are the amounts the Legacy Ridge developer proposed, if a new Plant were built for 422 homes to be hooked up, (Valley Forge’s 135 homes and Legacy Ridge’s proposed 287 homes). In addition, all the sewerage from the new 287 Legacy Ridge homes would pass through the existing Valley Forge Sewer Main Lines. The present Plant does not have to be built in two to three years. The Community Party Candidates are the only ones to say the Plant must be replaced in two to three years. Why would anyone use a mean scare tactic like this? The NYS DEC has never said this plant must be replaced in two to three years, (Currently, the NYS DEC has given approval for the continuation of the Valley Forge sewer plant with the upgrade of two of the three sand beds, which were done in 2006. The 3rd sand bed will be upgraded in 2007. Source: John P. Burke, Town Supervisor).
Expanded & Upgraded Water System
#2) “The municipal water system currently in use will remain as is and not be expanded, upgraded or modernized without developer funding.”
Fact): Their plans include using the existing water mains in Valley Forge that are more than 35 years old. The Community Party Candidates stated in item #2, which is in their flyer, that the Water System will be “expanded, upgraded or modernized”. The Community Party Candidates never state that a New Water Plant and System will be built by the developer. The current water system in Valley Forge meets all the NYS DEC standards and will continue to do so, with the support and maintenance of our Water Department.
Ridge Preservation
#3) “The approved home scheduled for construction on top of the Ridge was voluntarily incorporated into Legacy Ridge by the developer.”
Fact): While one house has been proposed to be eliminated from the hill, remember that many of the other proposed 287 Legacy Ridge homes, if approved, will require Ridge Preservation Consideration because they will be built above the 600 foot level.
Facts you must know: The Legacy Ridge developer to date has not signed any agreement to fulfill any of the proposed improvements. The water and sewer proposals have shifted from, upgrade, renovation to new and everything in between. Yet they mislead the Valley Forge residents in their flyer that a New Sewer Plant must be built in two to three years at a cost of 2 to 2.5 million for Valley Forge homes only. They fail to tell you that the 2 to 2.5 million dollar cost included the proposed 287 Legacy Ridge Homes. The only way to be sure what Valley Forge will get from the developer, is to have a written agreement with the developer and the town, which does not exist!
The Preservation Party has been honest and truthful throughout our campaigning. We have presented our proposals and facts for over two years when we initiated the creation of the Village with two public informational meetings. We want to work for all our residents. We refuse to jeopardize our community by telling lies, just to have the residents vote for us. Our special interest and only agenda is our residents. What are the Community Party Candidates special interests and agenda?
Remember to vote Row “A” for the Preservation Party Candidates
Thursday, November 2, 2006, at the Senior Center.
Owners in sub divisions BEWARE of LIES and SCARE TACTICS from the community party!
Where's the transcript of the debate?
Do we only get a few paragraphs describing what was said or do we get to hear or even read what was really said?
Was that another one of Caruso's demands?
This is BULLSHIT!
For the Ralphling that keeps posting from Ralph's site- you must have listened well while being schooled by the master himself...NEVER answer questions, and NEVER tell the truth, just avert peoples' attention. Smooth move moron, but it ain't gonna work. First of all, sourcing John Burke is like saying "while playing telephone, I heard....". So forget that argument. Secondly, you act like Legacy Ridge is a done deal, and that couldn't be further from the truth. If and when they get FINAL approval, of course everything will be in writing, so again, your argument is a ridiculous one. Why not do something really bold...TELL THE F!@#$ING TRUTH FOR ONCE!!! Answer the questions that have been posed instead of running away with your tail between your legs! The day that Ralph Caruso and his 4 running mates stand up in front of an audience and answer questions is the day he'll get my vote. Until then, I'll stay with the CommUNITY Party, becasue they ARE the Bottom Line when it comes to the TRUTH!!!!
Did the Preservation Party accusations and responses about the Legacy project impact to the water system miss the point or what?
Water lines being 35 years old is not a big deal. Aren't the water pipes in the older sections of town, like Central Valley, almost 100 years old?
So that is a nothing.
I thought the big issue was that the Town would get extra new water for all of us to use and that Valley Forge would get something called a loop or looped system. The way it was explained was that there is a single water line there now and if it breaks, like it did the summer of 2005, lots of people on the other side of break were without water from about noon to after midnight. Isn't the new system that Legacy might install suppose to avoid that by having a loop so that only the people near the break would lose water, but the rest would have it? What is so misinforming about that, except that the Preservation response forgot to explain these things and went off if a different and strange direction. It seemed more concerned about attacking the other party than about giving people the facts.
This is not an accusation but a question or perhaps a concern. Something that Mr. Sutz said at the open public forum the other night and again at the closed newspaper office forum---he said people should vote for him and for 2 people from one party and 2 people from the other party.
If you closely look at that, it means he sets himself up as the power broker---every decision could be tied and the trustees on the board would have to offer him the best deal for him to go their way. Kind of a clever way to increase your power when you have no slate of candidates running with you. In fact, everything and everybody would have to go through you as the tie breaker.
Again, no accusation, but a little unsettling if this power were to rest in the wrong hands. Not sure if I'm comfortable with that situation or if it makes for less conflict.
All this because Brodsky threatened to sell and everyone panicked. Wake up and grow up. If the fires too hot get out of the kitchen. Don't let the door slam you.
Every dog has his day. Where there's smoke there's fire. A fool and his money are soon parted. Brush after every meal.
Important
**NEWS RELEASE**
found on
www.villageofwoodbury.info
October 31, 2006
VILLAGE OF WOODBURY - 2006
RALPH CARUSO, CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF THE VILLAGE OF WOODBURY ATTENDED A DEBATE AT THE TIMES HERALD RECORD ON 10/30/2006, WITH THE RESULTING NEWS ARTICLE PRINTED ON 10/31/2006.
THE REPORTER, CHRIS MCKENNA TOOK JOURNALISTIC LIBERTY WHEN HE WROTE THE COMMENT WITH REGARD TO CARUSO “… MADE CLEAR HE REGARDS THE ELECTION AT LEAST PARTLY AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE SCORES WITH A TOWN BOARD…”
CARUSO RESPONDED IN AN EMAIL TO MCKENNA, “IT’S UNFAIR, MISLEADING, MISCONSTRUING AND UNPROFESSIONAL FOR ANYONE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT I EVEN SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT YOU WROTE.”
MCKENNA RESPONDED IN AN EMAIL, “A JOURNALIST DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR A POLITICAL CANDIDATE TO SAY “I’M GOING TO SETTLE A SCORE” “TO CALL IT THE WAY IT IS.”
AFTER READING THE ARTICLE CARUSO SAID, “EVENING SCORES SHOULD BE LEFT TO SPORTS GAMES NOT WHAT AFFECTS OUR RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE.”
CARUSO ASKED THE TIMES HERALD RECORD TO RETRACT THE STATEMENT.
Important
**NEWS RELEASE**
found on
www.villageofwoodbury.info
October 31, 2006
VILLAGE OF WOODBURY - 2006
RALPH CARUSO, CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF THE VILLAGE OF WOODBURY ATTENDED A DEBATE AT THE TIMES HERALD RECORD ON 10/30/2006, WITH THE RESULTING NEWS ARTICLE PRINTED ON 10/31/2006.
THE REPORTER, CHRIS MCKENNA TOOK JOURNALISTIC LIBERTY WHEN HE WROTE THE COMMENT WITH REGARD TO CARUSO “… MADE CLEAR HE REGARDS THE ELECTION AT LEAST PARTLY AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE SCORES WITH A TOWN BOARD…”
CARUSO RESPONDED IN AN EMAIL TO MCKENNA, “IT’S UNFAIR, MISLEADING, MISCONSTRUING AND UNPROFESSIONAL FOR ANYONE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT I EVEN SAID ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT YOU WROTE.”
MCKENNA RESPONDED IN AN EMAIL, “A JOURNALIST DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR A POLITICAL CANDIDATE TO SAY “I’M GOING TO SETTLE A SCORE” “TO CALL IT THE WAY IT IS.”
AFTER READING THE ARTICLE CARUSO SAID, “EVENING SCORES SHOULD BE LEFT TO SPORTS GAMES NOT WHAT AFFECTS OUR RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE.”
CARUSO ASKED THE TIMES HERALD RECORD TO RETRACT THE STATEMENT.
****HOT OFF THE PRESSES****
There was only ONE BUSINESS that paid for that ad in the Times Herald Record today. That was:
DOC CLEANING! The owner of that business who paid for the ad is DONNIE PROZZILLO WHO IS ALSO A VOLUNTEER FIREMAN! HE IS A DISGRACE TO THE FIRE COMPANY!
DONNIE PROZZILLO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT OTHER BUSINESES PAID FOR THE AD. HE LIED TO THE PUBLIC! THE ONLY PERSON WHO PAID FOR THE AD WAS DONNIE PROZZILLO!!!!
SHAME ON YOU DONNIE PROZZILLO!!
****HOT OFF THE PRESSES****
There was only ONE BUSINESS that paid for that ad in the Times Herald Record today. That was:
DOC CLEANING! The owner of that business who paid for the ad is DONNIE PROZZILLO WHO IS ALSO A VOLUNTEER FIREMAN! HE IS A DISGRACE TO THE FIRE COMPANY!
DONNIE PROZZILLO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT OTHER BUSINESES PAID FOR THE AD. HE LIED TO THE PUBLIC! THE ONLY PERSON WHO PAID FOR THE AD WAS DONNIE PROZZILLO!!!!
SHAME ON YOU DONNIE PROZZILLO!!
It would be nice if the new comments around here were actually substantitive debate, rather than Ralph and co's histrianic repitition. Can we make a separate sandbox area on this site for the toddlers to play in while the grownups actually talk about stuff?
Vote for the HONEST,ETHICAL,HARDWORKING,
QUALIFIED Team!!
The Preservation Team did not stoop to lies and deception of the people of Woodbury like the community party did! Do not be fooled, they want nothing but to disolve the Village! Do not trust the community party!
The Preservation Team has stated the truth and only the facts!!
Join me tomorrow and:
VOTE ROW A
RALPH CARUSO for Mayor
WILLIAM MULLOOLY for Trustee
GEORGE PEDERSON for Trustee
ADRIENNE FUCHS for Trustee
BENJAMIN MEYERS for Trustee
Experienced individuals who are honest, hardworking and will keep this Village/Towns best interest at heart!!
Vote ROW A for the PRESERVATION TEAM!
The desperation is clear. The sands are falling through Ralph's hour glass, and soon he will see that there is NO mandate. The CommUNITY party has given as much as they possibly can, with respect and truthfulness to the voters of Woodbury. They have knocked on our doors and answered all of our questions, and still the preservation party hides behind their kit, unwilling to defend their lies. Truth will prevail. Thank you.
Vote for the HONEST,ETHICAL,HARDWORKING,
QUALIFIED Team!!
The Preservation Team did not stoop to lies and deception of the people of Woodbury like the community party did! Do not be fooled, they want nothing but to disolve the Village! Do not trust the community party!
The Preservation Team has stated the truth and only the facts!!
Join me tomorrow and:
VOTE ROW A
RALPH CARUSO for Mayor
WILLIAM MULLOOLY for Trustee
GEORGE PEDERSON for Trustee
ADRIENNE FUCHS for Trustee
BENJAMIN MEYERS for Trustee
Experienced individuals who are honest, hardworking and will keep this Village/Towns best interest at heart!!
Vote ROW A for the PRESERVATION TEAM!
**NEW RELEASE**
www.villageofwoodbury.info
November 1, 2006
Important Facts for Highland Lake Estates Residents
Recently you received a flyer from the Highland Lake Estates HOA. It contained unsubstantiated accusations, lacking source reference and proof. In fact, it did not identify any person let alone any officer of the HOA, who are suppose to represent the views, concerns and interests of all the home owners, not just their personal views.
The flyer goes on to say that the HOA met with the Community Party Candidates. Why weren’t the Preservation Party Candidates given the same opportunity to meet with the HOA? We did knock on doors and distributed information.
Responding to specifics in the flyer we offer the following,
Lie #1- Citizens for the Preservation of Woodbury, Ralph Caruso’s group sued our current Town Board and Planning Board.
Fact-Three individuals residing in Central Valley, where their homes are next to the WP #3 project, sued the Town Board. They sued for a revote by the Town Board (not for money) because the Town Board voted to approve the 5 local laws prematurely, violating General Municipal Law 239, and they won the Lawsuit, and the Town Board had a revote. No Preservation Party Candidate is part of this lawsuit or any other lawsuit against the town.
Lie #2 – Do we want a village run by people with ties to KJ.
Fact - No Preservation Party Candidates have any ties to KJ. We are residents of Woodbury as you are, and are the group who organized and fought for the creation of the Village of Woodbury, to secure our zoning and quality of life. All of the Community Party Candidates worked very hard to defeat the creation of the Village. Makes you wonder who does have the ties to KJ. when the Preservation Party Candidates were for the creation of the village and the Community Party Candidates were against the creation, same as KJ.
Lie #3 - Woodbury gets hardly any grant money from Senator Larkin.
Fact - Just two examples of grants from Senator Larkin; 2002 - $300,000 Water System upgrades, 2005 - $100,000 to repair Ridge Road, that part of the road that you had to take detours to get around. Put simply, Woodbury has received almost three quarters of a million dollars in grants from Senator Larkin over 10 years, to help offset tax increases.
Lie #4 – Remember how KJ. residents lined up to vote no for the village? Watch the turnout to support Ralph Caruso.
Fact -They lined up alright because they were on the same side as the Community Party Candidates who opposed the creation of the village, as did KJ. Then when they arrived to vote and went to the table to sign to vote, they were met with voter registration challenges. Challenges filed by Ralph Caruso with the Orange County Board of Elections, 4 days before the election. Ralph Caruso Challenged 222 newly registered seasonal and summer camp residents. Those that came to vote were required to complete and sign a sworn affidavit before they were allowed to vote, and those who did not complete the affidavit, did not vote. To date all of those challenged have not been put back on the voter rolls, and won’t unless they can prove primary residence in Woodbury, thanks to Ralph Caruso.
Lie #5 – Preservation Team wanted the questions prior to attending the debate.
Fact- We have correspondence with the Times Herald Record that dispels this accusation of wanting the questions before hand, and clearly shows we only wanted a professional format and debate sponsored by a non-bias organization, not an organization supporting the Community Party Candidates, as did the Sponsoring Organization. In fact, Ralph Caruso had a debate with two of the three mayoral candidates on 10/30/2006, at the Times Herald Record office, where the Community Party Mayor candidate Stephanie Berean-Weeks did not attend.
Truth #1 – HOA flyer says, When people attack others rather than discuss the issues, there is a generally self-serving agenda in place.
Response -I read the Highland Lake Estates Homes Owner’s Association’s attack flyer you received, and can only say I hope the writers of the flyer read it because they “attack others rather than discuss the issues”, the proof is in the flyer!
The Preservation Candidates, Ralph Caruso, Mayor, Adrienne Fuchs, Benjamin Meyers, George Pedersen, & William Mullooly, Trustees have campaigned on the issues. We put forward proposals, and a plan, in fact we have done so for the past two years. We distributed solid information, only to have the Community Party criticize it, saying it won’t work. We have not and will not sling mud as our opponents have with personal attacks, never telling the residents how much it will cost if they govern the village! Yet, they want you to elect them! Our information packages have included clear and specific costs and proposals.
Remember to vote Row “A” for the Preservation Party Candidates
Ralph Caruso, Adrienne Fuchs, Benjamin Meyers, George Pedersen & William Mullooly
Thursday, November 2, 2006, at the Senior Center, 9:00 am to 9:00 pm.
Not on your life!
Post a Comment