Hypocrisy For All

The Senator Craig doings has been a study in hypocrisy by almost all involved.

Having a family-values, anti-gay-rights Senator outed in an airport men’s room, is, on its own, pretty old hat. Just this year we’ve seen the true faces of such staunch defenders of the family as Louisiana Senator Vitter (patron of prostitutes); Florida Congressman Bob Allen (arrested last month after offering to perform certain acts on an undercover male police officer for $20) and Good Ol’ Newt Gingrich himself (relaxed during the arduous Clinton impeachment by committing adultery).

But let’s not end the hypocrisy there. As the N.Y. Times pointed out, Craig’s Republican colleagues are falling all over one another in their rush to denounce him. Yet they remained remarkably silent when Vitter was exposed. Same-sex no-no’s are not nearly as forgivable as same-party heterosexual failings.

But this has been a banner year for hypocrisy. Just about every member of the We-Have-To-Impeach-Clinton-For-Lying-No-It’s-Not-About-Sex crowd felt that poor Scooter Libby deserved a pardon.

The Democrats, whose smartest course of action in the Craig mess would be to keep their mouths shut amazed everyone by doing just that.

But here at Uncle Head-Quarters what stands out in the Craig fiasco are two, mostly overlooked, points.

We aren’t all that worked up over Craig committing a men’s room misdemeanor. However, if, as the Senator now says, he was innocent, then his guilty plea was an act of perjury – a felony.

And, if he is telling us that he pled guilty because he was confused about the law, that’s reason enough to demand his resignation. The last thing we need is people writing laws who are incapable of understanding them

Word From The West

"It is clear, though, that through my actions I have brought a cloud over Idaho. "

US Senator Larry Craig (R, Idaho)

"Hey, you were the one busted in the men's room. Leave me out of this"

Idaho

Caruso Finally Shows Up At A Debate

Pieman vs Cow Pie

My View: Village of Woodbury worth the cost and working well
By Ralph Caruso
August 15, 2007

In response to the editorial July 19 ("It takes a village to raise the cost"), I find the editorial page editor's opinions misleading at the least.

The Village of Woodbury was proposed only after considerable research and planning targeted at not having multiple villages in the Town of Woodbury. The Town of Woodbury now has the Village of Woodbury and a portion of the Village of Harriman. We are keeping too many layers of government from occurring, because all the lands in Woodbury are now covered by these villages, meaning no more villages can be created in the Town of Woodbury.

The additional cost to the residents of both the Village and Town of Woodbury is about $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed evaluation annually. The homes in Woodbury are assessed at 40 percent of value. A home valued at $250,000 is assessed at $100,000, and pays about $140 to operate the village government annually. Districts and services transferred from the town to the village do not result in duplication of services or costs. The expense for these transferred districts and services will be taxed by the village, while the town will reduce the taxes to the residents by an equal amount for future tax years.

Initially, the village charged everyone $223.38 for sewer use, because the fiscal year of the village runs from June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008, and the town's fiscal year runs from Jan. 1, 2007, through Dec. 31, 2007, requiring the village to collect operation and maintenance taxes for sewer use for the five 2008 overlap months.

The taxpayers of Woodbury should not be fooled by the Times Herald-Record, which continually tells Woodbury residents what's good for them, and they should not be fooled by those who opposed the creation of the Village of Woodbury because of their special interests. The present Village Board is made up of members who opposed the creation of the village and contributed to the additional cost to Woodbury residents of about $60 annually more than proposed by the Citizens for the Preservation of Woodbury and its candidates. However, the protection the Village of Woodbury affords all Woodbury residents is well worth it.

The creation of the Village of Woodbury represents one of 555 created in New York state. Village law governs village organization and operations and places the responsibility with the mayor and trustees to make it work. That's why the Woodbury taxpayers elected them.

Part of their responsibility is to provide the residents fire protection. The present village mayor and trustees have been advised that village law provides for the creation of a village volunteer fire department and that the present town volunteer fire department cannot operate with Village Law 2-252.

Although not elected mayor, I continue to disagree and believe that the present Town of Woodbury volunteer fire department can operate as a joint town/village volunteer fire department, by applying Town Laws 11, 11a and 189a and Village Law 22-2210, 22-2212.

The greater majority of villages in the state have village volunteer fire departments. Regardless, our volunteer firefighters will continue to serve our community faithfully as they always have.

State law on annexation is the real trouble for Woodbury
By Jonathan Swiller
August 26, 2007

The Record's July 19 editorial discussing the new Village of Woodbury contained a number of inaccuracies. An Aug. 15 "My View" by Ralph Caruso rebuts the editorial but is, itself, misleading.

The editorial says that the "Legislature (should) step in and help the town and village (of Woodbury) negotiate a truce between the competing town and village water, sewer and fire districts." Not only are there no duplicate districts (town districts are being dissolved as the village takes over these functions), but no "truce" is needed. The town and village boards worked well together.

More troubling is the editorial's comment that "it is time for the officials in Woodbury to admit that they made a mistake ... and that they could use some state help to untangle this mess."

While forming a village creates problems, the "officials of Woodbury" have no mistakes to admit. With the single exception of Town Supervisor John Burke, no member of the town or village board favored the formation of the village. And both town and village officials immediately asked for "state help to untangle this mess." It was Ralph Caruso, himself, who was the prime advocate for forming a village.
Caruso now seeks to justify this by pointing out that having the Village of Woodbury prevents the formation of many smaller villages.

But during his two-year-plus campaign to create a village, this was never a major argument for going forward. Rather, Caruso repeatedly attempted to persuade people that forming a village would prevent annexation of Woodbury lands into Kiryas Joel. In fact, a village gave no protection against annexation.

Further, Caruso loudly claimed that creating a village would not appreciably increase taxes. Now Woodbury residents are seeing the painful reality in their additional tax bills. Caruso attempts to both minimize this increase and, at the same time, blame it on the Village Board.

But the increase is not negligible, and one of the reasons these board members were elected is that they told the public the truth — that having a village will be a financial burden. The board is doing its best to keep taxes down but has no choice but to pay expenses that Caruso pretended would not exist, such as unavoidable insurance and legal fees.

Throughout his campaign to become mayor of Woodbury, Caruso claimed that there would be no need to dissolve the Woodbury Fire District. He was refuted on this repeatedly, and yet he remained adamant. Now he performs a bit of a shell game. He states that he still insists that Woodbury can continue to have a volunteer fire department.

Of course it can have a volunteer fire department. That was never questioned. What was questioned was Caruso's false assertion that the town's fire district, under the control of its fire commissioners, would not have to be dissolved. He was wrong. And now he pretends that he was speaking about something else entirely.

Lastly, while the Record calls for state intervention to limit the proliferation of overlapping layers of government, the paper ought to be calling on Albany to address the underlying impetus that led to the creation of the Village of Woodbury: fear that Kiryas Joel would annex town lands. This very fear was exploited by Ralph Caruso to convince voters to form the village.

The Record should join with us in calling on the state Legislature to reform current annexation law so that targeted towns and villages would have a greater say in what becomes of their territory. That, at least, could help prevent the creation of future, unnecessary villages.

Wheels Within Wheels

The Pieman (bless his teeny, tiny heart) sent the following (along with a link so that the Uncle could post this large jpeg of the public notice - I've gotta learn how to do that).

The Kiryas Joel Village Board placed this announcement in last Sunday's Record. They say they will hold a public hearing to discuss taking over part of County Route 44 by eminent domain.

This is interesting for two reasons.

First, they can't. The NYS Constitution (Article 9, Section 1, Paragraph e) gives municipalities the power to act in the public interest to condemn (take over) private property. It would be unconstitutional (and impossible) for a village to take county property.

So, why announce this hearing (which probably won't take place)?

My guess is the whole point of the notice is in the second paragraph. They say they need CR 44 so that they can widen it, put in turning lanes, curbs, sidewalks, drainage, etc.

What's so important about that?

OCEAN convinced the legislature to send the request for Rt 44 back to committee by suggesting a compromise - allow KJ put in a sidewalk but don't hand over the road. Back in committee, that's exactly the motion that Alan Seidman offered and that passed.

But now KJ says they need to widen the road, to put in turn lanes, to put in drainage. None of these things are accomplished by the compromise. So, now they can say, "this is no compromise, you didn't give us what we asked for!"

If they try that, they have one little problem.

Back in 2006, Gedalye Szegedin wrote a letter to the County asking for 44. He listed only three reasons for it SIDEWALKS, CROSSWALKS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

The point of the notice is to try and change that list so they can reject the compromise - and it won't work.

One more point.

Some people have told me that by saying that OCEAN got this through is self-serving.

My answer to that is - damn right it is.

We have been working for years for the good of Southern Orange County and to protect Woodbury.

We have a pretty good record.

And if no one else feels like mentioning than I will.

We did good, and I'm damned proud of it.

No apologies!

The Call Of The Open Road

KJ road-annex request draws local opposition
By Chris McKenna

August 22, 2007Times Herald-Record
Kiryas Joel — It began three years ago with a village request to take over part of a county road to install sidewalks and do other improvements.

On the back burner until recently, the proposal is now fueling an unexpected fight between Kiryas Joel officials and their sparring partners in two neighboring towns, and on the Orange County Legislature.

Kiryas Joel leaders call it an urgent safety matter. They say they want sidewalks for their growing population near Route 44, which crosses an area where hundreds of condominiums have been built. Their Hasidic community teems with pedestrian traffic, including mothers pushing baby strollers.

"This road now leads to about 1,100 apartments," Village Administrator Gedalye Szegedin said. "That's almost a third of the village living on that road, so we want to make a significant investment in it."

County lawmakers were poised to approve the request last month, but sent it back to committee when last-minute opposition arose. Opponents applaud the sidewalk plan but argue that Kiryas Joel can build them without taking ownership of the road.

"I'm saying it's an unnecessary complication of a major through route," said Woodbury activist Jonathan Swiller.

The county's Physical Services Committee plans to discuss the request today. But anticipating rejection, Kiryas Joel officials have announced a Sept. 7 public hearing to begin the process of seizing the road through eminent domain.

Two separate requests are pending: one to give Kiryas Joel 1,800 feet of Route 44, the other to give a 1,080-foot adjacent stretch to the Town of Monroe.

Kiryas Joel officials point out that the county has given up other road sections, and complain that their municipality is being treated differently. Opponents argue that no other transfers interrupted a through road. They suggest the county grant Kiryas Joel an easement to build sidewalks rather than relinquish the road.

Legislator Frank Fornario, R-Blooming Grove, the chairman of the Physical Services Committee, said he's concerned Kiryas Joel might close the road on the Sabbath or other religious days when the Hasidim don't drive. And he wants the county to continue to maintain the road.

Szegedin said the village never closes its roads for religious reasons.

Four municipalities — the Towns of Woodbury and Blooming Grove and the Villages of Woodbury and South Blooming Grove — have passed resolutions opposing the request.

Numbers Count

Kiryas Joel has asked the County to give the Village a section of County Route 44 (Seven Springs Mountain Road) so that they can put in a sidewalk. The sidewalk is a good idea, giving away control over the middle of an important through route isn't.

On Wednesday, August 22, at 3 PM the Physical Services Committee of the County Legislature will be discussing and then voting on this issue.

Nothing gets a legislator's attention like knowing that he (or she) is being watched by the voters.

The more people who show up for this meeting, the better the chance for a good outcome.

Come down to the County Government Building in Goshen.

Let them see you seeing them.

Update From The Pieman

On the Easement KJ sought for a water pipe to cross the Heritage Trail:

It had became apparent to the Legislature that Frank Fornario had the votes to table the issue, so it was dropped from the agenda. This means that it will come before the Physical Services in three weeks (as it should).

Another item was on the agenda - should the county turn over a section of Rt 44 (west from Forest Road) to KJ so that the Village could put in a sidewalk?

There were a series of speakers, all opposed to turning over part of Rt 44 to the Village: Brandon Nielson (Blooming Grove Town Councilman), Gary Dugan (South Blooming Grove Home Owners Assn), Myrna Kemnitz (Democratic Candidate for Legislature from Monroe) and from Woodbury Neil Crouse, Ralph Caruso and Me.

Roxanne Donnery offered a motion that the bill be sent back to the Physical Services Committee. This passed 15 to 5. The 5 who did not want to table the issue were Michael Amo, Michael Pillmeier, Leigh Benton, Daniel Depew and Bill Lahey. Lahey chaired the session and was rude and abraisive to the speakers and to those legislators on the other side of the issue from himself.

My own view was that a sidewalk was an important and valuable addition - particularly because of the number of walkers on the road on the sabbath (including mothers with strollers) but that a way should be found to grant KJ an easement to build the sidewalk without turning over part of an important county through road to a village with a history of acting without any consideration for the needs of neighboring municipalities.

After the session one of the legislators told me that he thought that this vote killed the possibility of a sidewalk. I hope this isn't so. Safety requires one. As Sheila Conroy has pointed out, Woodbury maintains sidewalks on route 32, while the state controls the road itself.

Over the Transom and Under the Heritage Trail

An email from the Pieman:

The story, so far, as I understand it.

The powers that be in KJ have a well on or near Larkin Drive that they want to hook into their water system.

An unpaved section of the Heritage Trail passes between the well and the Village, so the pipeline has to cross the trail.

The proper way of doing things is to get an easement from the county before crossing the trail. But contractors began work without the easement. The county DPW found out and stopped the work.

The contractors then applied for the easement. The normal course of events would send the matter to the Physical Services Committee and the Rules Committee of the legislature.

The Physical Services Committee meets on the third Wednesday of the month.

Committee Chairman Frank Fornario finalizes the agenda the previous Thursday.

In afternoon of the Monday before the committee met, Eddie Diana asked Fornario to add the easement to the agenda. Frank explained that it was too late for July, but that it would be added for August.

Last Friday the matter was brought before the Rules Committee, which sent it to the floor of the Legislature.

Legislators are being told, that they follow their own, normal procedures it will take too long and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be wasted as the contractor waits.

That may or may not be a real number. But even if it is, where does the fault lie?

Too often the current political leadership of Kiryas Joel has acted as if they felt that getting forgiveness after they have done something is easier than getting permission before. You will recall the illegal sewer line hookups off route 44 just last year.

The Village leaders and their contractors are well aware of the need for an easement

But by the time that the contractors were ready to cross the Heritage Trail nothing had been done to secure that easement. And once the County had halted work there, suddenly, it was the legislature and not the village leaders or their contractors who were to blame for time being wasted.

I do not feel that the Village of Kiryas Joel should be subjected to any greater rigors of enforcement than any other municipality.

Nor should they be exempted from that enforcement.

The easement will be voted on by the Legislature tomorrow, Thursday, August 2. The session takes place at 7 PM.

I hope that the Legislature follows its own procedures, tables the matter for one month, and allows the Physical Services Committee to do its job.