Wednesday, August 22, 2007

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.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frank Fornario's Physical Services Committee unanimously accepted Alan Seidman's motion which offered to work with KJ so that the Village could put in a sidewalk, but kept all of Route 44 a county route.

Anonymous said...

Good job guys.
But get ready for the KJ response in the media.
How we are hateful,they are victims. If it gets really hot the "holocaust" will get thrown in.But since we are not Germany, I never could fiqure that one out.
How we are not good neighbors.
WE ARE NOT GOOD NEIGHBORS???????
Talk to some old timers to the area.
Listen to thier stories about how we would bend to thier ways, but NEVER, would they bend to ours.
Good neighbor hah
What about all the laws their neighbors obey by.
But they are above.
Talk to thier neighbors whose wells went dry because they dug illegal wells.
What about the construction permits they never bother to get.
What about the "smart growth" they so consistently tell us to shove.
We are just fed up. And KJ dosen't like the new order of things.......

Anonymous said...

What is with the Times Herald Record? They are complaining in their editorial today about double government because two towns and two villages have come together and took a stand for what they believed in.

Let's see, on the other foot the Town of Monroe and Village of Kiryas Joel have come together. Let's turn our heads to that issue of double government.

Shame on the Record for not seeing all angles of an issue before they take a side!

Anonymous said...

Question: Can a community claim eminent domain on already public land such at Route 44? It doesn't seem logical.

Anonymous said...

The NYS Constitution (Articl 9, Section 1, Paragraph e)says "Local governments shall have power to take by eminent domain private property..."
They cannot take County property.

Anonymous said...

jonathan swiller said........I'm a fat racist pig..