78°
GREENBURGH, N.Y. — Despite the efforts of Greenburgh civic associations and residents, the lease with Game On 365 passed with an overwhelming majority in its Nov. 6 referendum, making this one of the top stories of 2012 in Greenburgh.
Many residents spoke out against construction of a sports dome on Dobbs Ferry Road — some said its size would stick out like a sore thumb in their quiet neighborhood and others said there were environmental law violations in the lease.
The referendum passed in a 65-35 vote because most voters were uninformed of the issues that the Westchester Field House would raise, Edgemont Community Council Director Bob Bernstein said.
Some voters didn't even realize another referendum was on the other side of their ballot.
Woodard and Curran, an environmental service hired to examine the site, found evidence of carcinogens on the old Frank's Nursery property.
To complicate the building process even further, the civic associations and residents that opposed construction of the complex filed a lawsuit against the Town Board and developers Game On 365.
The town considered selling, not leasing, the property Dec. 19 to avoid a long legal process and court fees.
Comments (3)
I don't know what Paul Feiner is talking about. I did not "organize an aggressive campaign to defeat the referendum."
What I do know is that in Edgemont, where I live, the Game On referendum failed by a wide margin. I think the reasons it failed had to do with the fact that unlike the rest of the Town, Edgemont residents were informed BEFORE the vote that the Town's consultants had discovered cancer-causing carcinogens on the site where Game On, a startup with no assets other than the sweetheart lease Mr. Feiner was offering, was planning to build indoor and outdoor athletic fields for children, that Mr. Feiner had secretly met with the consultants and deliberately concealed the results of their study for at least a week in the hope residents of the Town would not find out about it -- Mr. Feiner said that because of the hurricane, he was too busy to release it -- that as a result of committing unwitting taxpayers to the Game On proposal, Mr. Feiner was creating a huge unknown and unknowable financial obligation for Greenburgh taxpayers to fund the cleanup, and that, as a result, Mr. Feiner's cynical "$5 million for Greenburgh" campaign to support the Game On referendum was at the end of the day false, misleading and disingenuous in the extreme.
This is not surprising given that earlier this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld findings in Fortress Bible that Mr. Feiner violated the constitutional rights of a church, lied under oath, and destroyed evidence -- a finding that, because of Mr. Feiner's antics, will likely cost Greenburgh taxpayers more than $6 million in damages.
I agree with Mr. Feiner that there is a lack of soccer fields in Greenburgh and in Westchester, but even though Greenburgh is the only town in New York (and possibly the country) with two separate town recreation departments, he has done nothing to remedy that situation. Even the Town's Webb Field, which is ideal for a soccer field, is unused.
The reality, of course, is that, Mr. Feiner's personal attacks against me notwithstanding, Game On has still not signed a lease, has therefore still not funded a penny of the environmental costs that the Town has committed to spending, and in all likelihood, Game On may not even have the resources to consummate the transaction. Thus, like the failed Tennis Bubble proposal that Mr. Feiner was touting earlier this year, for which Mr. Feiner demanded and received a legislative change in Albany, it is possible that without any financing to support it, the Game On proposal may face a similar fate.
What constitutes a top story/stories? What are the criteria used to determine this (their) selection?
In this recap, surely the temptation to restate past reporting errors must have been too delicious to pass up.
An overwhelming majority of THOSE WHO VOTED, not the eligible voting population (this a Presidential election year especially).
"some said" sounds dubious and skeptical of those who noted that a structure nearly 8 stories high would "stick-out like a sore thumb" is patently offensive to those who spoke out. And to do so, requires both a zoning change and a height variance, what about this does the reporter still not get?
Likewise "others said" that "there were environmental law violations" also imports an editorial tolerance absurdity and blocked exercise of fact acknowledgement akin to "some say World War ll has ended".
"Woodward and Curran..found evidence of carcinogens..." but the Town did not release this report until a few days before the Referendum and did not do so in a wide or convincing manner until AFTER the Referendum.
"To complicate the building process even further" is not the reason that a lawsuit was filed but rather to force the Feiner Town Board to comply with the law.
And the Town Board, so far, has "mentioned" selling the property (this itself a contradiction to the determination of the aforementioned Referendum which asked for consent to Lease the property) not for the stated reason of seeking to avoid costly litigation (only on this matter, the Town Board having recently and capriciously wasted taxpayer dollars on unrequited appeals) but to avoid a loss of face since they knew from the first that they were treading on uncertain ground.
But given the "urgency" and "compelling need" to proceed by Lease and Feiner's arguments that a lease would allow the Town to realize the theoretical higher sales value in 15+ years and the possibility of being used for a Town purpose, readers would do well to consider the real but unstated reasons for spinning the 180 degree turnabout.
Not to forget that if the Referendum served any purpose it was to determine what the "people" wanted (assuming they were provided with the facts in a timely manner) and if that outcome held merit (the quoted two thirds), then the Town should be OBLIGATED TO DEFEND in Court the position already taken by the Town Board even before the Referendum (which was only confirmation) to Lease rather than accepting the highest offer to purchase made (by another party) at the time of the RFP.
However, the real reason being that the tenant, GameOn, is unable to perform in compliance with the terms of the Lease offered and should be considered in default -- if they have even signed the Lease as of yet. So far, what has been described as their generosity in assuming the burden for an initial $125,000 contribution toward reimbursing the Town for the cost (environmental study and resultant soil mitigation now in excess of $110,000 and rising), the Town may not have even received the initial $43,500. Residents (hopefully the Daily Voice Reporter included) may learn soon that the tenant is without the means to pursue even the obligations of the Lease much less purchase but that may be moot in light of the even more weighty Lease face saver: that either the Town or the Tenant may opt out of the Lease (with no break-up fee to either) should the cost of the environmental cure exceed the unrealistic low set bar of $450,000.
Yes, even after the news has been created, "reported", criticized and corrected by readers and, with plenty of un-rushed and no deadline to meet, with time to evaluate it and put it into perspective, Daily Voice readers still are being held captive to a standard of journalism that is as low set as the above $450,000.
Hal Samis
Bob Bernstein's comments are totally ridiculous. Bob and others organized an aggressive campaign to defeat the referendum. He asked organizations to oppose the referendum. He spoke at meetings, organized an e mail campaign against the referendum. Thousands of people voted and the voters overwhelmingly approved the sports bubble by close to a 70% margin. There is a need for more recreation in Greenburgh -there is a lack of soccer fields in Greenburgh and in Westchester. On this issue Bob is out of touch with the residents of Greenburgh.