59°
GREENBURGH, N.Y. — Elm Street Sports Group and a local organization called "Burst the Bubble" have filed a lawsuit against the Town of Greenburgh, claiming violations of state and local laws and tax codes in the town's lease agreement with Game On 365.
In August, the Greenburgh Town Board unanimously approved a 15-year lease for a domed sports complex to be built at 715 Dobbs Ferry Road, pending voter approval in a Nov. 6 referendum. Now, members of the community have taken a stand against the dome's construction.
"Every time I look at the lease I see something that is bogus," Tom Bock, a member of Burst the Bubble, told The Daily Voice in August. "It's like a piece of Swiss cheese — there are so many holes in it."
The lease with Game On would violate the Westchester County tax code and state real property tax law, the state Environmental Quality Review Act, and the Finneran Law, according to the lawsuit.
"The Town has illegally decided not to do any traffic, parking, noise, EMF [electromagnetic fields], aesthetic or community services studies prior to entering the lease," thus violating the state environmental act, members of Burst the Bubble wrote on their website. "Residents will not be protected from potential harms without these studies being done prior to the lease."
Additionally, Westchester County and state laws mandate that the town sell, not lease, property acquired through tax foreclosure, which Greenburgh violated, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites similarities between the Game On lease and a 2009 case, Bernstein v. Feiner, in which the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court ruled that a town park cannot be used by residents of the incorporated villages who do not pay town taxes to acquire and maintain the park. The Game On lease does not restrict the complex's use to only Greenburgh residents outside the villages, violating the Finneran Law, the lawsuit says.
Burst the Bubble was founded by Simon Cohen of Greenburgh, while Elm Street Sports Group comprises representatives of The House of Sports, a facility less than three miles away in Ardsley that provides services similar to the proposed Game On complex.
Greenburgh Town Attorney Tim Lewis said there are no plans to withhold the referendum from the November ballot, and he plans to respond to the lawsuit within a month.
"We're not going to let this stop us. There's litigation like this all the time when there's a competitor out there," Lewis said, referring to Elm Street Sports Group. "We will proceed as if we can do it unless we get an injunctive order from the court."
Comments (14)
To Juanita... I'm a greenburgh taxpayer who can't afford another property off the tax rolls for another park. This 80 foot high bubble doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood. $20,000 in taxes a year should afford me a better view than a big silver bubble. Parks and Rec should address the need for more field space with the existing properties designated for that use. This bubble belongs in an industrial/commercial zone, not in a residential area where our taxes are already forcing us to move.
It seems to me that the "lease" with Sports Time is not even going to provide the town with the amount of taxes the property should be paying. We should use the land for town park land.
To all the local politicians, politicians-want-to-be and taxpayers-
One question that has not been brought up is:
Will this be good for the kids of Greenburgh?
Answer >>>> YES! Provided that Game On will work diligently with Greenburgh Parks and Rec to offer affordable sports leagues and programs for the parents, kids, taxpayers, seniors of Greenburgh.
I think it would offer low cost alternatives for parents who have young kids. In case you haven't checked out House of Sports, it will only cost $40 per hour for their coaches and facilities!!! I know many parents who takes their kids to MacDonald's on Central during winter so that their kids will get some activities in after school. Game On and the Dome can provide relief to the taxpayers of Greenburgh.
So, think about the kids, parents and seniors of Greenburgh when you vote in November!
What guarantees are there that Game On will not increase prices?
Why aren't you asking the Town and its Parks and Recreation Department to provide more opportunities? It's the Town's land that is being used. This while the GameOn developers anticipate earning many millions of dollars just by doing what you think is the right thing for kids. In fact, according to their own projections, they anticipate earning (after expenses) more than a million dollars in their sixth year. The income from renting just/only/not the sports area (am I making myself clear) the retail space in their project to outsiders exceeds by a multiple of what they are paying the Town in "rent" for the entire premises. That's a very good deal for the developers and a very bad deal for the Town.
Next time the parents you know who take their kids to McDonald's on Central (Avenue?) for indoor activities you might suggest to them that they go a half mile further to Presser Park/Webb Field where they can view a Town Park which sits idle most of the year (an occasional flea market or traveling carnival) while the field which could, but does not, accommodate three soccer fields remains barren.
And if the McDonald's on Central Avenue is your example of indoor recreation think how little space this is accomplished in and how little money would be needed to recreate this "room" in either the TDYCC or the various structures at the Town Park (Veteran). And if McDonalld's provides such a great measure of enjoyment to kids, then ask the Supervisor to replicate it at Town Hall. Do we need a cafeteria at the expense of our kids. No to the cafeteria? How about the Credit Union space upstairs -- there lease is expiring and they don't pay much in rent (under $30,000). Tell your Town Supervisor you have a problem; he is the Problem solver.
The economic question (money does talk) is whether the market will support both facilities and whether the GameOn facility is being provided with an unfair competitive advantage (among other things) in being rent subsidized by Greenburgh taxpayers More of the same type of facility is not the answer nor is closing your eyes to the magnitude of problems that the proposed Lease represents. Your taxes are going up because Feiner's financial mismanagement of the Town has cost taxpayers big, big bucks, and growing, in recent years. Greenburgh is a town of many special interests and needs and looking out for just the kids who will use this facility during the winter months (4), can get to and from it and will endure no substitutes is a very small piece of the whole pie. Meanwhile, the controversial Lease calls for very little revenue to the Town because Feiner did not seek a wider range of interested parties. You need to recognize what violations are on record in Feiner's kitchen; knowing that as unwholesome and fattening as the food may be at McDonald's; eating there is a safer bet than dining in Feiner's Restaurant.
And the problem is that those who dine at Feiner's Restaurant are used to thinking that you can get anything you want at Feiner's Restaurant. This is no longer going to happen. And during the transition, get used to the idea that the Town is no longer going to be serving "free lunch". As for Seniors, free walking is available at both indoor malls in White Plains: the Galleria and the Westchester and no one will limit what day or time of day you choose to arrive.
Hal Samis
I hope Bonnie Orden considers running against Feiner in 2013. We need to get this guy out of office and bring in someone who understands and respects the law and knows the definition of ethical.
Let's go to the...dictionary.
Syllogism: a subtle or specious piece of reasoning
Specious: having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious
Fallacious: a lie or falsehood...Get the picture.
What Feiner has presented for the Referendum is substituting a syllogism as the counterpart to logic.
Simply put: if you the reader were a Republican and you were to answer yes or no to my question, how would you answer "Are you a dumb Republican?"
Answer yes and you're dumb, answer no and you deny being a Republican.
Or, if you were married, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Answer yes and you admit to beating her, answer no and you're still beating her.
Do people actually try this in real life? Yes if you're a desperate Paul Feiner.
That's how the the Referendum question is put together. Are you against the Town getting all these goodies? Vote yes to approve, no to deny.
Looks factual and balanced to me. Not!
Look at which just appeared in the mail.
Feiner has reheated "Mrs. Murphy's Chowder". No one can say that he isn't presenting a fair and balanced proposition, lol.
"THIS IS THE REFERENDUM QUESTION WORDING...
-Shall Town Board resolution TB-1, unanimously approved by the Greenburgh Town Board on August 13, 2012, authorizing the town to enter into a lease with Game On 365, LLC for the construction of a sports bubble and accessories to operate a private multi-purpose, year round sports facility with access for children, adults and seniors; working closely with both town Departments of Parks & Recreation and Community Resources at the Theodore D. Young Community Center, when needed as space and schedules allow; to be located at 715 Dobbs Ferry Road, Town of Greenburgh; generating over a fifteen year period, a minimum of five million dollars in property taxes and revenue; providing for a one-time payment of up to one hundred twenty five thousand dollars for an environmental study and cleanup, be approved?"
Thanks Town Attorney Tim Lewis for being so clear. What is not yet so clear is why the Town is taking the slacker's route to the ballot box, now less than four weeks away. While the Town Board is patting itself on the back for declaring this a mandatory Referendum, they would do well to recognize that holding a Referendum on an issue carries with it certain responsibilities as the "host"; none of which the Town has done so far. They include notifying the public as to when the Referendum is to be held; where the polling places are located and provide the littlest detail of all: what is to be voted on. In other works what is the "Propositions's" specific language that voters will see appear on the ballot. Probably because the Town doesn't know yet because the Town Board and Feiner, in particular, for all their collective bluster do not really want educated voters to appear. And the Town which should be neutral in conducting a Referendum is doing little to get the facts into the hands of voters. Feiner, who sends an emailed "gezund-heit" out every time a favored constituent sneezes, has not come forward and sent out a balanced and factual voter guide.
As far as I know, with no evidence to the contrary, the Referendum could be on any or all of these questions:
1) do voters want the Town to lease or sell the property?
2) do voters want any disposition of the property before site specific studies (appraisal, soil mitigation, traffic study, etc.) are conducted -- these would provide a better idea of the property's market value for Lease or Sale?
3) do voters want the property to be leased for its intended use? a use which requires a zoning use change and height variance.
4) do voters want the existing Lease (with its existing terms or do voters want to see a new Lease with terms favorable to the Lessor, the Town?
You see here's the inherent sneakiness and sellout of the residents even as the Referendum appears to go forward. Feiner, by the authority of the Resolution already passed by the Town Board, has already signed the Lease. It is legally binding unless struck down by the Courts in response to the above Article 78 proceeding. If the Courts do not find in favor of the plaintiff thus making the Lease yesterday's news because the Lease would be in violation of the law, the executed Lease becomes will survive the Referendum whatever the outcome.
Feiner has executed the Lease before the Referendum; he did not hold off until the Referendum was over. Thus, the Lease becomes grandfathered and binding because the Town Supervisor followed the terms of the approved Town Resolution which gave him the right to sign the Lease.
So unless I am missing something, the input of the people vis a vis the Referendum result holds no water. Feiner thinks that he will have the votes and thus the true situation will never come to light.
Which comes back to what exactly is being determined by this Referendum?
Asking voters at the ballot box if they think the GameOn 365 fellows are nice people won't do it either. So, ask your favorite Town Supervisor: WHAT EXACTLY IS THE LANGUAGE of the Proposition to be voted upon?
Curious, isn't it, that the Town has not revealed it yet.
Hal Samis
During the weekend prior to the November elections the town will be airing two information video's on public access TV-- one for the Game on lease and the other against the lease. At tonights Town Board meetings I invited critics and supporters to tape a 10 minute segment which will air non stop on local TV (Friday night to Tuesday).
I believe that the people should make the decision --providing voters with both sides of the issue will enable the electorate to cast an educated vote.
This is what democracy should be about...
PAUL FEINER
Mr. Feiner, when you return to see new comments, please advise the public as to what exactly they will see asked at their polling place on Election Day. The Town is hosting the Referendum; the tv endless loop is just "he said, she said".
What voters are seeking is the Town's factual and balanced voter guide to the issue. How are people supposed to vote without knowing the facts? And time is getting short. One hopes that your having already signed the Lease, that you know the pros and cons and thus your signing was not capricious. It is not the private interests that have initiated the Referendum but yourself. So do your job.
As of now I don’t know the situation regarding this issue,I just hope that it can be solve already coz I need such information for my paper discovery reports on litigation.
"There's litigation like this all the time ......." YUP! All the time, costing Greenburgh taxpayers big bucks and results a huge loss of town services. I was hoping someone would finally run against Feiner but now I'm hoping he stays so that we can pull the legs off of him one by one by one...