Monday, October 23, 2006
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Over The Transom, Attached To A Garbage Can
Woodbury Self Preservation Team
Endorsed by the Woodbury Self-Preservation Team
Vote for us please, please, please, please, please, please.
We know where you live
QUESTION
What would you do about zoning?
ANSWER
We would not alter zoning in any way unless, of course we do, but we're not going to, probably, yet, now that I think about it, neh, I'd leave it alone, I guess, except for changing it.
QUESTION
You have said that the fire district wouldn't be effected, but attorneys say that's not so. You have called for a referendum on zoning, but the town attorney points out that that is illegal in New York State. You have said that the WP3 project violates the Master Plan, but the Master Plan is clear that WP3 is within its guidelines. You have led people to believe that a village protects them from annexation, but state law makes it clear that it doesn't. Please explain.
ANSWER
I'm right. Everybody else is wrong.
QUESTION
You say that the village can be run for a under $150,000, but insurance alone will be more than that. Then there are huge legal bills, and the ongoing expenses of rental, salaries, etc. Explain.
ANSWER
I have been a full time resident of Woodbury for 35 years.
QUESTION
That doesn't explain your budget numbers.
ANSWER
I am an aide to State Senator Bill Larkin.
QUESTION
What does that have to do with my question?
ANSWER
Oh look, a kitty!
QUESTION
I just want an answer to my question.
ANSWER
I've spent as much time with you as I can, there's a campaign going on you know. We'll have answers for you right after the election.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Want Honest Elections? .......... Then Work For Them!
The Uncle has heard some stories.
Are they true?
Dunno.
But I sure as hell want to know.
So, you're all deputized. Have you heard anything about these stories. The Uncle wants to hear who is saying what.
There is a lie making the rounds that Stephanie Berean-Weeks is pro-KJ. That is to say, according to this bull, that she would sell out Woodbury to Szegedin and Weider. This sounds like pure Caruso crap. But is it being said, and if so, by whom?
If you have heard anyone repeating this lie, please drop the Uncle a line at cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
The second story is a somewhat differently colored horse, but again, the Uncle is looking for confirmation.
Fact, at the Fire Company's forum at the IBEW, the attorney who was making the presentation, Frank Simeone, attempted, repeatedly, to explain village law to Ralph Caruso. Simeone, quoted from legal statutes, Caruso didn't care, Simeone, gave specific cases as examples, Caruso, didn't care. Caruso kept saying that he was right and the law was wrong.
OK, so far no big whoop. That's just Ralph being Ralph.
But, now, it is reported that Ralph Caruso has told a number of people in the senior center that after the after the forum, the attorney came over to Ralph and said "My mistake, I was wrong and you're right."
This part NEVER HAPPENED. In fact, if you were there you know that the attorney left before the forum ended.
So, the important question is: is Ralph telling people this story? Is Ralph actually claiming that the attorney (who had already gone) said to Ralph "You're right, I'm wrong."???
If Ralph never told this whopper to anyone, then that should be made clear.
And if Ralph really is spreading this manure - everyone ought to know so that he can be exposed.
Please, have you heard this story? If so, from whom?
If your town (and now village) matters to you, make sure that people know the what's true and what isn't.
Send all info here to Uncle Central, once again, that email address is mailto:csuzzincookie@hotmail.com
Are they true?
Dunno.
But I sure as hell want to know.
So, you're all deputized. Have you heard anything about these stories. The Uncle wants to hear who is saying what.
There is a lie making the rounds that Stephanie Berean-Weeks is pro-KJ. That is to say, according to this bull, that she would sell out Woodbury to Szegedin and Weider. This sounds like pure Caruso crap. But is it being said, and if so, by whom?
If you have heard anyone repeating this lie, please drop the Uncle a line at cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
The second story is a somewhat differently colored horse, but again, the Uncle is looking for confirmation.
Fact, at the Fire Company's forum at the IBEW, the attorney who was making the presentation, Frank Simeone, attempted, repeatedly, to explain village law to Ralph Caruso. Simeone, quoted from legal statutes, Caruso didn't care, Simeone, gave specific cases as examples, Caruso, didn't care. Caruso kept saying that he was right and the law was wrong.
OK, so far no big whoop. That's just Ralph being Ralph.
But, now, it is reported that Ralph Caruso has told a number of people in the senior center that after the after the forum, the attorney came over to Ralph and said "My mistake, I was wrong and you're right."
This part NEVER HAPPENED. In fact, if you were there you know that the attorney left before the forum ended.
So, the important question is: is Ralph telling people this story? Is Ralph actually claiming that the attorney (who had already gone) said to Ralph "You're right, I'm wrong."???
If Ralph never told this whopper to anyone, then that should be made clear.
And if Ralph really is spreading this manure - everyone ought to know so that he can be exposed.
Please, have you heard this story? If so, from whom?
If your town (and now village) matters to you, make sure that people know the what's true and what isn't.
Send all info here to Uncle Central, once again, that email address is mailto:csuzzincookie@hotmail.com
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Pardon Me, Mr. Caruso, Um, There Seems To Be A Problem
New village faces finances
Complicated budget issues for Woodbury
'October 17, 2006
By Chris McKenna
October 17, 2006Times Herald-Record
Woodbury — Residents here who voted in August to create a village with boundaries nearly identical to their town's gambled that their elected leaders could work through any future complications that might arise.
But just weeks before residents return to the polls Nov. 2 to elect the first Village of Woodbury board, town officials are getting a glimpse of the tangled financial issues that lie ahead as they enter what are largely uncharted waters in New York.Among the questions: Which government — town or village — will pocket the sales-tax and mortgage-tax income that Orange County sprinkles among its municipalities to help them meet their expenses?
Woodbury got roughly $2 million from those two sources in 2005. But now, as town officials prepare their budget for next year, they don't know if they can count on sharing the county's largesse any longer, because the new Village of Woodbury might get those checks instead.An even bigger issue: who will collect and spend more than $10 million in Woodbury property taxes? State law dictates the town relinquish its revenue to the village on June 1 — which raises the question of how the town will continue to pay its employees and meet its other obligations.
One possibility is that the village hands its money back to the town. But whatever the solution, some are blasting the activists who told voters before the village referendum that it would be as easy as "leasing" the police department and other town services for a token $1.
"I just think it was incredibly irresponsible," Councilwoman Geraldine Gianzero said yesterday. "Now the town is having to scramble to get answers to all of these questions."
Supervisor John Burke, Gianzero's Town Board colleague, holds fast to the optimistic view that he and other village advocates put out before the referendum: everything will work out in the end."I'm very positive about it," Burke said. "Since 2,100 people voted for a village, we must make it work."
Steve Gross, a spokesman for Orange County Executive Edward Diana, said yesterday that it might take weeks for the county's lawyers to decide how future sales- and mortgage-tax payments to Woodbury will be made."We wish we had the answers for that right now, but it's a complicated issue," he said. "This is an issue that nobody in the county has dealt with before."
Complicated budget issues for Woodbury
'October 17, 2006
By Chris McKenna
October 17, 2006Times Herald-Record
Woodbury — Residents here who voted in August to create a village with boundaries nearly identical to their town's gambled that their elected leaders could work through any future complications that might arise.
But just weeks before residents return to the polls Nov. 2 to elect the first Village of Woodbury board, town officials are getting a glimpse of the tangled financial issues that lie ahead as they enter what are largely uncharted waters in New York.Among the questions: Which government — town or village — will pocket the sales-tax and mortgage-tax income that Orange County sprinkles among its municipalities to help them meet their expenses?
Woodbury got roughly $2 million from those two sources in 2005. But now, as town officials prepare their budget for next year, they don't know if they can count on sharing the county's largesse any longer, because the new Village of Woodbury might get those checks instead.An even bigger issue: who will collect and spend more than $10 million in Woodbury property taxes? State law dictates the town relinquish its revenue to the village on June 1 — which raises the question of how the town will continue to pay its employees and meet its other obligations.
One possibility is that the village hands its money back to the town. But whatever the solution, some are blasting the activists who told voters before the village referendum that it would be as easy as "leasing" the police department and other town services for a token $1.
"I just think it was incredibly irresponsible," Councilwoman Geraldine Gianzero said yesterday. "Now the town is having to scramble to get answers to all of these questions."
Supervisor John Burke, Gianzero's Town Board colleague, holds fast to the optimistic view that he and other village advocates put out before the referendum: everything will work out in the end."I'm very positive about it," Burke said. "Since 2,100 people voted for a village, we must make it work."
Steve Gross, a spokesman for Orange County Executive Edward Diana, said yesterday that it might take weeks for the county's lawyers to decide how future sales- and mortgage-tax payments to Woodbury will be made."We wish we had the answers for that right now, but it's a complicated issue," he said. "This is an issue that nobody in the county has dealt with before."
Friday, October 13, 2006
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Name Calling
SO, as things now stand, we have just created the Village of Woodbury.
Only problem, it's kinda been done.
In Oyster Bay there is the Hamlet of Woodbury. Add to that our very own, non-coterminous Town of Woodbury and now the new Village of Woodbury...things are going to get just a tad confusing.
Orange County (the one in New York, as opposed to the one in California or the one in New Jersey or the one - say, did you know that Orange is the most popular county name in America? Honest. There's one Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Lord knows where else) what was I saying? Oh, yeah, Orange County already has the Town of Newburgh and the City of Newburgh, the Town of Monroe and the Village of Monroe ditto for Chester, Goshen. There are the Town and Village of Montgomery - as well as Fort Montgomery. And Warwick(Town and Village)which already gets confused with Walkill and Walden and whathaveyou. We've also got Highland Mills, Highland Falls, Highlands and Highland (well that's Ulster, but close enough).
So, why does the village have to have the same name as the town?
It doesn't!
But what should we call it?
Central Mills?
Highland Valley?
Harriman Junior?
Woodbury Commonwealth?
Newer York City?
Grenitch Village?
Village of the Darned?
Kiryas Ralph?
What say ye all?
Only problem, it's kinda been done.
In Oyster Bay there is the Hamlet of Woodbury. Add to that our very own, non-coterminous Town of Woodbury and now the new Village of Woodbury...things are going to get just a tad confusing.
Orange County (the one in New York, as opposed to the one in California or the one in New Jersey or the one - say, did you know that Orange is the most popular county name in America? Honest. There's one Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Lord knows where else) what was I saying? Oh, yeah, Orange County already has the Town of Newburgh and the City of Newburgh, the Town of Monroe and the Village of Monroe ditto for Chester, Goshen. There are the Town and Village of Montgomery - as well as Fort Montgomery. And Warwick(Town and Village)which already gets confused with Walkill and Walden and whathaveyou. We've also got Highland Mills, Highland Falls, Highlands and Highland (well that's Ulster, but close enough).
So, why does the village have to have the same name as the town?
It doesn't!
But what should we call it?
Central Mills?
Highland Valley?
Harriman Junior?
Woodbury Commonwealth?
Newer York City?
Grenitch Village?
Village of the Darned?
Kiryas Ralph?
What say ye all?
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
"If You Have Nothing Nice To Say About Anyone, Come Sit Here By Me"
The Uncle can be contacted at:
cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
cuzzincookie@hotmail.com
Friday, October 06, 2006
Meanwhile, In Another Part Of The Universe
Congress has just cut funds for research into traumatic brain injuries (one of most devestating injuries suffered by our troops in Iraq) from 14 million to 7 million. At the same time they have voted 20 million to be used for a (future) celebration of the successful completion of the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
Just thought that you'd want to know.
Just thought that you'd want to know.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
U.S. Sues Rockland Village For Denying Variance To Orthodox Group
wnbc.com
POSTED: 4:48 pm EDT September 26, 2006
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- The federal government accused a village of religious discrimination Tuesday for denying a zoning variance to a residence used by Orthodox Jews so they can visit a hospital on the Sabbath without breaking their law against driving.
In a lawsuit filed in White Plains, the government said that in denying the variance for a Shabbos House, the Rockland County village of Suffern was violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. It requested an injunction against enforcement of any village laws that would burden the group's religious practice.
"This lawsuit enforces Congress' determination that local zoning regulations must give way when they unlawfully burden religious exercise," U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said.
A village attorney, Terry Rice, said that while he had not seen the lawsuit, the agency that requested the variance "did not claim it was a religious use."
"The zoning board applied New York state law and had no choice but to deny" the variance, he said.
The lawsuit says that from 1988 to 2004, Bikur Cholim Inc., an Orthodox Jewish service agency, provided meals and lodging for Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath and other holy days in a Shabbos House on the grounds of Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern. That allowed followers who wanted to visit or transport patients to avoid driving to or from the hospital on the Sabbath.
Believers would drive to the Shabbos House on Friday, before the Sabbath began at sundown, and then could walk to the hospital during the Sabbath and drive home afterward. The closest hotel is 3 1/2 miles away, Bikur Cholim lawyer Paul Savad said.
The Shabbos House also helped residents comply with other Sabbath prohibitions; for example, lights were on timers or left on throughout the Sabbath so the Orthodox would not have to use electric switches. The housing is free, so there is no money to be handled.
In 2004, when Good Samaritan expanded, the Shabbos House moved across the street from the hospital, into a newly built house in an area zoned for single-family homes. The village denied a building permit and a zoning variance that would have allowed use of the house by up to 14 people, the lawsuit says.
Savad, who represents Bikur Cholim in its own lawsuit against Suffern, said that under the Religious Land Use act, when a zoning variance is requested for the practice of religion, the municipality must show a compelling reason not to grant it. He said because the Shabbos House is on the fringe of a residential area and all cars would be parked at the hospital, the village has no good reason not to grant the variance.
"It's the same as if a couple had 12 people over for dinner and they stayed the night," he said.
He also said that Good Samaritan, a Catholic hospital, supports the Shabbos House.
Rice said it has not been established that such a "hotel-type" use is a religious use, but Savad said visiting the sick is a strongly held religious practice for Orthodox Jews and prayers and services are conducted on the Sabbath at the residence.
Despite the zoning decision, the Shabbos House is still operating pending court decisions.
© 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
POSTED: 4:48 pm EDT September 26, 2006
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- The federal government accused a village of religious discrimination Tuesday for denying a zoning variance to a residence used by Orthodox Jews so they can visit a hospital on the Sabbath without breaking their law against driving.
In a lawsuit filed in White Plains, the government said that in denying the variance for a Shabbos House, the Rockland County village of Suffern was violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. It requested an injunction against enforcement of any village laws that would burden the group's religious practice.
"This lawsuit enforces Congress' determination that local zoning regulations must give way when they unlawfully burden religious exercise," U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said.
A village attorney, Terry Rice, said that while he had not seen the lawsuit, the agency that requested the variance "did not claim it was a religious use."
"The zoning board applied New York state law and had no choice but to deny" the variance, he said.
The lawsuit says that from 1988 to 2004, Bikur Cholim Inc., an Orthodox Jewish service agency, provided meals and lodging for Orthodox Jews on the Sabbath and other holy days in a Shabbos House on the grounds of Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern. That allowed followers who wanted to visit or transport patients to avoid driving to or from the hospital on the Sabbath.
Believers would drive to the Shabbos House on Friday, before the Sabbath began at sundown, and then could walk to the hospital during the Sabbath and drive home afterward. The closest hotel is 3 1/2 miles away, Bikur Cholim lawyer Paul Savad said.
The Shabbos House also helped residents comply with other Sabbath prohibitions; for example, lights were on timers or left on throughout the Sabbath so the Orthodox would not have to use electric switches. The housing is free, so there is no money to be handled.
In 2004, when Good Samaritan expanded, the Shabbos House moved across the street from the hospital, into a newly built house in an area zoned for single-family homes. The village denied a building permit and a zoning variance that would have allowed use of the house by up to 14 people, the lawsuit says.
Savad, who represents Bikur Cholim in its own lawsuit against Suffern, said that under the Religious Land Use act, when a zoning variance is requested for the practice of religion, the municipality must show a compelling reason not to grant it. He said because the Shabbos House is on the fringe of a residential area and all cars would be parked at the hospital, the village has no good reason not to grant the variance.
"It's the same as if a couple had 12 people over for dinner and they stayed the night," he said.
He also said that Good Samaritan, a Catholic hospital, supports the Shabbos House.
Rice said it has not been established that such a "hotel-type" use is a religious use, but Savad said visiting the sick is a strongly held religious practice for Orthodox Jews and prayers and services are conducted on the Sabbath at the residence.
Despite the zoning decision, the Shabbos House is still operating pending court decisions.
© 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)