Hey unincorporated residents: we get the privilege of paying the highest damages awarded against a municipality for religious discrimination in American history (according to Greg Shillinglaw of the Journal News).
From today's Journal News: "If the settlement is absorbed by residents of the unincorporated area and financed with a bond carrying a 10-year repayment schedule, the agreement would result in an average annual town tax bill increase of $35.15, from $3,625 to $3,660, according to calculations prepared for the Journal News by a certified public accountant."
Read all about the Fortress Bible settlement at
http://westchester.lohudblogs.com/2013/12/17/greenburgh-approves-6-5-million-settlement-mount-vernon-congregation/
or http://www.lohud.com/article/20131216/NEWS02/312160048/Greenburgh-mulls-6-5M-settlement-Mount-Vernon-church?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Greenburgh,%20New%20York|p
A modest proposal: as a sign of goodwill toward unincorporated residents, why don't those Board members who were defendants in the law suit donate their recently self-awarded raises toward the settlement for as many years as it takes to pay off the $6.5 million?
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
Campaign Finance: 2013 Primary Edition
Here are the campaign finance numbers, courtesy of NY State [http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html], for the Greenburgh Supervisor primary starting from Bernstein's nomination by the Greenburgh Democratic Party in late May and continuing through Sept. 20th (i.e., the 10 day post primary financial disclosure filing date).
Feiner: Raised: $16,838 (Feiner started campaign with $132,977 in campaign funds).
Spent: $67,760
cost per vote: $17.61
Bernstein Raised: $58,233
Spent: $53,724
cost per vote: $25.08
For comparison, let's look again at the 2007 primary numbers also continuing through the 10 days post-primary financial disclosure filings. The 2007 campaign, however, started in early March, three months earlier than in 2013.
Feiner 2007 Raised: $52,980 (Feiner stated campaign with about $138,500 in campaign funds)
Spent: $74,416
cost per vote: $17.25
Berger 2007 Raised: $37,519 (Berger also lent her campaign $40,000)
Spent: $76,177
cost per vote: $34.75
Random comments:
1. Bernstein's $58K in fundraising is even more impressive when taking into account that the candidates in 2007 each had three extra months to solicit contributions than the 2013 candidates. Bernstein's fundraising success included the support of almost 170 $100+ donations. But, putting this success in context, Bernstein's $58K was little more than one-third of the $150K that Feiner had to work with ($132,977 in funds plus $16,838 raised). And, as he demonstrated in 2007, Feiner too can raise $50,000 during a campaign if he makes the effort.
2. Edgemont pays up: The vast majority of Bernstein's large (i.e., $100 and more) contributors listed 10583 (presumably Edgemont) and Greenburgh zip codes. This is less true for Feiner who consistently receives contributions from outside Greenburgh and especially Berger, who accumulated relatively little Greenburgh funds.
3. By continually fundraising during off-years, Feiner is able to maintain a war chest of at least $130,000: he entered both the 2013 and 2007 campaign with this a bank balance around this level. Furthermore, Feiner's not facing challengers in six years has allowed him to keep his funds largely intact while maintaining moderate levels of spending (mainly office/car expenses and charities) consistant with actual fundraising. If Feiner were challenged every two years, however, Feiner would have to change his campaign finance strategy: perhaps by requiring "team" candidates to fundraise also(it appears that Judith Beville raised and spent zero funds for her joint campaign with Paul, which suggests that she may be the shrewdest pol in town).
4. It may be a coincidence, but Feiner's per vote spending in 2007 and 2013 was consistent at about $17.50 per vote. Although Bernstein's spending was much more efficient than Berger's, neither challenger approached the "bang for the buck" that Feiner enjoyed. If Feiner targets 3,800 to 4,000 votes as a goal to win each Democratic primary, then he should anticipate spending $65,000 to $70,000 for each future primary campaign. While Feiner ended the campaign with $81,874 in the bank, he certainly has enough time in the next two years to restore his funds balance to his usual $130,000. The letter he recently distributed shows that he has already started fundraising in anticipation for 2015.
5. Bernstein acted similarly to Berger in that he allocated a huge amount of his funds (nearly $38K or about 70%) to a Washington based Democratic-party marketing company. Just like 2007 when 360 JMG collected lots of checks without showing much value for their services, the true winner of the 2013 campaign was The Pivot Group [www.thepivot.com]. When comparing Bernstein's performance to Berger six's years earlier, it does not seem that Bernstein was especially well served by his consultants and management. Bernstein could probably have saved $40K and done just as well. Of course, this was his contributors' money, so it's up to them to raise these questions.
6. Feiner does not squander contributors' money on DC firms. He also finds a way to spend less on campaign managers/consultants. Feiner's main expenses, are his usual group of vendors, like Scott Schindler, and postage and signage companies. Feiner's biggest single spending extravagence was the $15,000 in attorney's fees to challenge Bernstein's ballot petitions. While this tactic is anti-demorcratic, the risk-reward return of the strategy made it logical, as described below. If you subtract out these legal fees, Feiner spent the same amount on the campaign as Bernstein, while garnering nearly twice as many votes.
7. The Feiner team's strategy of trying to knock off candidates by ballot challenges may be as much a financial as electoral consideration. If Feiner had succeeded in knocking Bernstein off the ballot, he could have potentially saved his campaign $50,000. This potential reward was probably worth the $15,000 invested in legal costs to mount the challenge, which leads to perhaps the most eye raising campaign expense....
8. Archibald Mussington's $500 payment for "reimubursement of campaign expenses"? Mussington was the complainant in Feiner's challenges to the validity of Bernstein's ballot petitions. The round number of $500 seems somewhat puzzling as an expense reimbursement. It would interesting to see an itemization of Mussington's expenses and his invoice.
Feiner: Raised: $16,838 (Feiner started campaign with $132,977 in campaign funds).
Spent: $67,760
cost per vote: $17.61
Bernstein Raised: $58,233
Spent: $53,724
cost per vote: $25.08
For comparison, let's look again at the 2007 primary numbers also continuing through the 10 days post-primary financial disclosure filings. The 2007 campaign, however, started in early March, three months earlier than in 2013.
Feiner 2007 Raised: $52,980 (Feiner stated campaign with about $138,500 in campaign funds)
Spent: $74,416
cost per vote: $17.25
Berger 2007 Raised: $37,519 (Berger also lent her campaign $40,000)
Spent: $76,177
cost per vote: $34.75
Random comments:
1. Bernstein's $58K in fundraising is even more impressive when taking into account that the candidates in 2007 each had three extra months to solicit contributions than the 2013 candidates. Bernstein's fundraising success included the support of almost 170 $100+ donations. But, putting this success in context, Bernstein's $58K was little more than one-third of the $150K that Feiner had to work with ($132,977 in funds plus $16,838 raised). And, as he demonstrated in 2007, Feiner too can raise $50,000 during a campaign if he makes the effort.
2. Edgemont pays up: The vast majority of Bernstein's large (i.e., $100 and more) contributors listed 10583 (presumably Edgemont) and Greenburgh zip codes. This is less true for Feiner who consistently receives contributions from outside Greenburgh and especially Berger, who accumulated relatively little Greenburgh funds.
3. By continually fundraising during off-years, Feiner is able to maintain a war chest of at least $130,000: he entered both the 2013 and 2007 campaign with this a bank balance around this level. Furthermore, Feiner's not facing challengers in six years has allowed him to keep his funds largely intact while maintaining moderate levels of spending (mainly office/car expenses and charities) consistant with actual fundraising. If Feiner were challenged every two years, however, Feiner would have to change his campaign finance strategy: perhaps by requiring "team" candidates to fundraise also(it appears that Judith Beville raised and spent zero funds for her joint campaign with Paul, which suggests that she may be the shrewdest pol in town).
4. It may be a coincidence, but Feiner's per vote spending in 2007 and 2013 was consistent at about $17.50 per vote. Although Bernstein's spending was much more efficient than Berger's, neither challenger approached the "bang for the buck" that Feiner enjoyed. If Feiner targets 3,800 to 4,000 votes as a goal to win each Democratic primary, then he should anticipate spending $65,000 to $70,000 for each future primary campaign. While Feiner ended the campaign with $81,874 in the bank, he certainly has enough time in the next two years to restore his funds balance to his usual $130,000. The letter he recently distributed shows that he has already started fundraising in anticipation for 2015.
5. Bernstein acted similarly to Berger in that he allocated a huge amount of his funds (nearly $38K or about 70%) to a Washington based Democratic-party marketing company. Just like 2007 when 360 JMG collected lots of checks without showing much value for their services, the true winner of the 2013 campaign was The Pivot Group [www.thepivot.com]. When comparing Bernstein's performance to Berger six's years earlier, it does not seem that Bernstein was especially well served by his consultants and management. Bernstein could probably have saved $40K and done just as well. Of course, this was his contributors' money, so it's up to them to raise these questions.
6. Feiner does not squander contributors' money on DC firms. He also finds a way to spend less on campaign managers/consultants. Feiner's main expenses, are his usual group of vendors, like Scott Schindler, and postage and signage companies. Feiner's biggest single spending extravagence was the $15,000 in attorney's fees to challenge Bernstein's ballot petitions. While this tactic is anti-demorcratic, the risk-reward return of the strategy made it logical, as described below. If you subtract out these legal fees, Feiner spent the same amount on the campaign as Bernstein, while garnering nearly twice as many votes.
7. The Feiner team's strategy of trying to knock off candidates by ballot challenges may be as much a financial as electoral consideration. If Feiner had succeeded in knocking Bernstein off the ballot, he could have potentially saved his campaign $50,000. This potential reward was probably worth the $15,000 invested in legal costs to mount the challenge, which leads to perhaps the most eye raising campaign expense....
8. Archibald Mussington's $500 payment for "reimubursement of campaign expenses"? Mussington was the complainant in Feiner's challenges to the validity of Bernstein's ballot petitions. The round number of $500 seems somewhat puzzling as an expense reimbursement. It would interesting to see an itemization of Mussington's expenses and his invoice.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Still waiting for the final precinct breakdown for the primary and latest financial disclosure numbers.....
Nothing new: the Westchester Co. Board of Elections still has not posted the final voting numbers for Greenburgh's 81 precints and NY State has not posted the most recent financial disclosure reports.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Let's start looking at some numbers: part I
The Westchester BOE still hasn't listed the final breakdown for Greenburgh's 81 districts, but we do have some numbers we can examine to put the recent primary (and Greenburgh's democratic vibrancy) into context. According to the BOE website [enrollment books: http://citizenparticipation.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/2013enrollActive.pdf], Greenburgh has 30,882 active registered Democrats (herein "ARD"), and 58,427 active registered voters overall (herein "ARV"). Turn out among ARD in the primary was 19.4%. The BOE added some more votes to unofficial results yesterday, now giving:
NAME VOTES % votes cast % ARD % ARV
Feiner 3847 64.2% 12.5% 6.6%
Bernstein: 2142 35.8% 6.9% 3.7%
TOTAL 5989 19.4% 10.3%
For all of Feiner's presumed popularity (e.g., see Phil Reiman), it is surprising (to me at least) that only 1 in 8 Greenburgh ARDs took advantage of the opportunity to vote for him for the first time in six years. Of course, Bernstein's popularity, or lack thereof, is even more dismal as only 1 in 14 ARD's filled in his circle at the polls. OK, I admit that the last column isn't fair to the candidates: we'll never know how a general election would have turned out. But it is rather interesting to see the exact percentage of Greenburgh's active registered voters actually determine our town officials: 6.6 % is not exactly the example of a vibrant democracy - or a political mandate.
Bob Bernstein offered the breakdown for Edgemont's six election districts on his FB page last week. Edgemont, btw, has 2413 ARDs as of 2013 (7.8% of Greenburgh's total) and 4765 ARVs overall (8.2% of Greenburgh's total). So let's try to put those numbers into perspective:
NAME EDG votes % in EDG % non-EDG % EDG ARD %EDG ARV
Feiner 185 21.6% 71.4% 7.7% 3.9%
Bernstein 673 78.4% 28.6% 27.9% 14.1%
TOTAL 858
First off, Edgemont's turnout of ARD turnout 35.6% was impressive, nearly double the turn-out of 18% among non-Edge ARDs. But, and here comes the crucial weakness of an Edgemont-centric candidacy, Bernstein's bastion holds less than 8% of ARD in Greenburgh. Even a highly motivated Edgemont still only turned out 14.3% of the total vote in this past primary (858 out of 5989). (A political cynic might suggest that Paul Feiner should encourage Edgemont-based candidates to challenge him in perpetuity.)
If it matters to Paul Feiner, he'll see that his popularity in Edgemont is feeble: Bernstein actually did better outside Edgemont than Feiner did among our Southern neighbors. But should this really trouble Feiner? I suppose it might because of the implied threat of incorporation (sorry about calling it secession perviously, but hey, I'm a Civil War buff). Conversely, if Bernstein's candidacy was also intended to serve as a referendum on Edgemont's desire to love Greenburgh or leave it, the stat that he received only 28% of the votes of Edgemont ARDs hardly suggests that incorporation has a mandate. In fact, these results don't even suggest that Bernstein would automatically win an election for Emir of Edgemont, were that vote to be held tomorrow. Consequently, Feiner may have no serious, immediate worries on the incorporation front either. As further numbers and financial disclosures roll in, we'll continue this post-election analysis.
*These Edgemont numbers maybe slightly off depending on how many of the 67 votes recently added to the total by the BOE come from Edgemont.
NAME VOTES % votes cast % ARD % ARV
Feiner 3847 64.2% 12.5% 6.6%
Bernstein: 2142 35.8% 6.9% 3.7%
TOTAL 5989 19.4% 10.3%
For all of Feiner's presumed popularity (e.g., see Phil Reiman), it is surprising (to me at least) that only 1 in 8 Greenburgh ARDs took advantage of the opportunity to vote for him for the first time in six years. Of course, Bernstein's popularity, or lack thereof, is even more dismal as only 1 in 14 ARD's filled in his circle at the polls. OK, I admit that the last column isn't fair to the candidates: we'll never know how a general election would have turned out. But it is rather interesting to see the exact percentage of Greenburgh's active registered voters actually determine our town officials: 6.6 % is not exactly the example of a vibrant democracy - or a political mandate.
Bob Bernstein offered the breakdown for Edgemont's six election districts on his FB page last week. Edgemont, btw, has 2413 ARDs as of 2013 (7.8% of Greenburgh's total) and 4765 ARVs overall (8.2% of Greenburgh's total). So let's try to put those numbers into perspective:
NAME EDG votes % in EDG % non-EDG % EDG ARD %EDG ARV
Feiner 185 21.6% 71.4% 7.7% 3.9%
Bernstein 673 78.4% 28.6% 27.9% 14.1%
TOTAL 858
First off, Edgemont's turnout of ARD turnout 35.6% was impressive, nearly double the turn-out of 18% among non-Edge ARDs. But, and here comes the crucial weakness of an Edgemont-centric candidacy, Bernstein's bastion holds less than 8% of ARD in Greenburgh. Even a highly motivated Edgemont still only turned out 14.3% of the total vote in this past primary (858 out of 5989). (A political cynic might suggest that Paul Feiner should encourage Edgemont-based candidates to challenge him in perpetuity.)
If it matters to Paul Feiner, he'll see that his popularity in Edgemont is feeble: Bernstein actually did better outside Edgemont than Feiner did among our Southern neighbors. But should this really trouble Feiner? I suppose it might because of the implied threat of incorporation (sorry about calling it secession perviously, but hey, I'm a Civil War buff). Conversely, if Bernstein's candidacy was also intended to serve as a referendum on Edgemont's desire to love Greenburgh or leave it, the stat that he received only 28% of the votes of Edgemont ARDs hardly suggests that incorporation has a mandate. In fact, these results don't even suggest that Bernstein would automatically win an election for Emir of Edgemont, were that vote to be held tomorrow. Consequently, Feiner may have no serious, immediate worries on the incorporation front either. As further numbers and financial disclosures roll in, we'll continue this post-election analysis.
*These Edgemont numbers maybe slightly off depending on how many of the 67 votes recently added to the total by the BOE come from Edgemont.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Well.... that was quick: but can Bernstein beat Berger?
Some immediate post-election thoughts:
1. Feiner the Formidable: If the preliminary results stand up, Feiner's margin of victory over Bernstein (66% - 34%) will be same as his 2007 edge over Suzanne Berger. With lower turnout this time around, however, Bernstein will probably end up with at least 200 fewer votes than Berger, making this the weakest challenge to Feiner since Jim Lasser received about 30% of the general election vote in 2003 (although Lasser did receive more than 4000 votes). It will be interesting to watch the final campaign spending numbers to calculate the final cost per vote.
2. The return of Edgemont secession? Feiner had predicted very early in the campaign that he would win Edgemont, which was about the only miscalculation in his campaign. Instead, it appears that he may have taken only about 20% of the Edgemont vote, which is far less than he received in 2005 and 2007. Conversely, Bernstein may have received nearly half of his votes from Edgemont, indicating that his appeal resonated with his neighbors although not much further than their school district's borders. Of course, one of the underlying themes (or implied threats, depending on your point of view) of Bernstein's campaign was that the reasons for Edgemont to secede would be obviated by his defeating Paul Feiner. Bernstein repeated this talking point at the debate, leaving the the implication that his defeat could revive Edgemont secession talk. It will be interesting to see if Bernstein campaign, which focused on resentment against Feiner and his policies, will energize the secession advocates in Edgemont and broaden support in that community. Edgemont secession will be a disaster for Hartsdale. It would behoove Feiner to make some gestures toward encouraging Edgemont reconciliation with the rest of Greenburgh - although I have no idea how that could be done.
3. Greenburgh is Feiner-istan. By now, it should be clear that Feiner can always turn out 3500+ primary voters. I had thought that Feiner's voter turnout would suffer because he had not faced an election in six years and some of his regular supporter might have eroded in the interim. Obviously, I was completely wrong. Feiner appeared to put little effort into this campaign until the last ten days or so. His fundraising was lax and he was distracted by understandable issues. Nevertheless, Feiner won easily. Feiner's ability to rely consistantly on this level of voter turnout, combined with his financial resources, should give pause to any potential challenger in the future.
4. Wednesday morning quarterbacking: It should be obvious by now that an Edgemont-centered candidate is not going to beat Paul Feiner. (Here's some unsolicited advice: if the anti-Feiner activists are sincere about impacting the town's policies - rather than being motivated primarily by animus against Feiner - they should give up challenging the supervisor and turn their electoral efforts against the other board members, two of whom were unopposed this year). It's telling that the only challenger to really threaten Feiner during his 22 years in office came from the town's largest voting community, which sits in the town's center - Hartsdale.
1. Feiner the Formidable: If the preliminary results stand up, Feiner's margin of victory over Bernstein (66% - 34%) will be same as his 2007 edge over Suzanne Berger. With lower turnout this time around, however, Bernstein will probably end up with at least 200 fewer votes than Berger, making this the weakest challenge to Feiner since Jim Lasser received about 30% of the general election vote in 2003 (although Lasser did receive more than 4000 votes). It will be interesting to watch the final campaign spending numbers to calculate the final cost per vote.
2. The return of Edgemont secession? Feiner had predicted very early in the campaign that he would win Edgemont, which was about the only miscalculation in his campaign. Instead, it appears that he may have taken only about 20% of the Edgemont vote, which is far less than he received in 2005 and 2007. Conversely, Bernstein may have received nearly half of his votes from Edgemont, indicating that his appeal resonated with his neighbors although not much further than their school district's borders. Of course, one of the underlying themes (or implied threats, depending on your point of view) of Bernstein's campaign was that the reasons for Edgemont to secede would be obviated by his defeating Paul Feiner. Bernstein repeated this talking point at the debate, leaving the the implication that his defeat could revive Edgemont secession talk. It will be interesting to see if Bernstein campaign, which focused on resentment against Feiner and his policies, will energize the secession advocates in Edgemont and broaden support in that community. Edgemont secession will be a disaster for Hartsdale. It would behoove Feiner to make some gestures toward encouraging Edgemont reconciliation with the rest of Greenburgh - although I have no idea how that could be done.
3. Greenburgh is Feiner-istan. By now, it should be clear that Feiner can always turn out 3500+ primary voters. I had thought that Feiner's voter turnout would suffer because he had not faced an election in six years and some of his regular supporter might have eroded in the interim. Obviously, I was completely wrong. Feiner appeared to put little effort into this campaign until the last ten days or so. His fundraising was lax and he was distracted by understandable issues. Nevertheless, Feiner won easily. Feiner's ability to rely consistantly on this level of voter turnout, combined with his financial resources, should give pause to any potential challenger in the future.
4. Wednesday morning quarterbacking: It should be obvious by now that an Edgemont-centered candidate is not going to beat Paul Feiner. (Here's some unsolicited advice: if the anti-Feiner activists are sincere about impacting the town's policies - rather than being motivated primarily by animus against Feiner - they should give up challenging the supervisor and turn their electoral efforts against the other board members, two of whom were unopposed this year). It's telling that the only challenger to really threaten Feiner during his 22 years in office came from the town's largest voting community, which sits in the town's center - Hartsdale.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Will the candidates seriously discuss the Hartsdale-10530 property value crisis?
The campaign for Greenburgh Supervisor has failed to address the most serious issue facing Hartsdale/10530 home owners: the continuing stagnation in single family home values. Let's look at some charts and ask some questions:
Well, let's say there is something of a difference. According to Zillow's index 10583 values peaked in March 2008. Our neighbors (and supervisor candidates) enjoyed two more years of home value escalation before they got hit by the bubble burst and financial crisis. But look... there's been an actual recovery in 10583: their prices are already back up to the levels of Feb. 2009. Good job Supervisor candidates! OK, just for fun, let's look at our fellow Greenburgh voters in Hastings-in-Hudson, where our Supervisor insisted on holding the only debate of the campaign.
Hastings looks a lot more like 10583 than 10530, you say. Hastings stayed at its peak until about March 2008. And Hastings prices have recovered back to where they were in the summer of 2009.
Here are the questions that every Hartsdale home owner should be asking the candidates:
1. (A) As you can see above, home values in both your zip code of 10583 and neighboring Hastings have recovered to 2009 levels. Can you offer explanations to suggest why Hartsdale's home values began dropping two years earlier than 10583 and Hastings?
(B) Why have Hartsdale home values, unlike 10583 and Hastings, shown no signs of recovery, but instead have apparently leveled off at 2003 levels?
2. Can you suggest any specific policies that you, as Supervisor, could implement to assist real estate value recovery in Hartsdale?
NOTE: I know that the Supervisor has no direct control over home values, but Hartsdale is the largest single community in Greenburgh, and its homeowners deserve your serious consideration of this matter.
Look at Hartsdale. According to Zillow's Home Value index, prices peaked in April 2006. Interestingly, this was more than 2 years before Lehman Brother's failure heralded the market collapse of late 2008. But there's been a recovery, you say? Not in Hartsdale: according to Zillow's index, our home values as of July 1, 2013 have recovered to the level of.... um, well, sometime beyond the left margin of this ten year chart. Yes, 10530 single family price values are back up to ....October 2003 levels! Factor in inflation and it's even worse. Next up, the zip code of our two candidates for supervisor... 10583:
Hastings looks a lot more like 10583 than 10530, you say. Hastings stayed at its peak until about March 2008. And Hastings prices have recovered back to where they were in the summer of 2009.
Here are the questions that every Hartsdale home owner should be asking the candidates:
1. (A) As you can see above, home values in both your zip code of 10583 and neighboring Hastings have recovered to 2009 levels. Can you offer explanations to suggest why Hartsdale's home values began dropping two years earlier than 10583 and Hastings?
(B) Why have Hartsdale home values, unlike 10583 and Hastings, shown no signs of recovery, but instead have apparently leveled off at 2003 levels?
2. Can you suggest any specific policies that you, as Supervisor, could implement to assist real estate value recovery in Hartsdale?
NOTE: I know that the Supervisor has no direct control over home values, but Hartsdale is the largest single community in Greenburgh, and its homeowners deserve your serious consideration of this matter.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
To "WPEyesNEars"
Note the "rule" written at the top of the page. I'll be happy to print your comment (in which you accuse me of "drinking the Feiner Kool-aid") once you add your real name to your statement. Otherwise, your opinions have the same value as your courage (i.e., none at all).
WP: I've insisted on the name disclosure rule to keep this forum free from vitriol and the usual anonymous pro and anti Feiner blowhards and hacks who haunt lohud and daily greenburgh. I very much welcome the participation and input of a fellow uninc. Greenburgh resident of the non-Edgemont variety, but it's solely your decision whether your comments get publicly posted on this site - and that's contingent on giving your name. You didn't provide your email, btw.
WP: I've insisted on the name disclosure rule to keep this forum free from vitriol and the usual anonymous pro and anti Feiner blowhards and hacks who haunt lohud and daily greenburgh. I very much welcome the participation and input of a fellow uninc. Greenburgh resident of the non-Edgemont variety, but it's solely your decision whether your comments get publicly posted on this site - and that's contingent on giving your name. You didn't provide your email, btw.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Forlorn Hartsdale.... Alas!: UPDATE: Bernstein visits Manor Woods
Tonight's debate between Feiner and Bernstein lasted over two hours. It was a surprisingly entertaining evening with Bernstein speaking well and making his points effectively and Feiner startlingly aggressive and well-prepared with sound bites and documents. But, during these 2+ hours, guess which two syllables were never uttered by either candidate? You are correct if you guessed.... HARTSDALE. We truly are the neglected, taken-for-granted, high-tax-payers of Greenburgh. For these two candidates, whose children attend highly reputed school systems and whose families live in communities enjoying escalating property values, Hartsdale apparently does not exist. Not a single allusion to or question about Hartsdale's special double whammy of spiraling taxes and declining property values. How appropriate that the only debate in this campaign took place in Hastings-on-Hudson. Hartsdale - the community with the largest single number of voters in Greenburgh - might as well not exist. But do we have anyone to blame for this inattention other than ourselves?
UPDATE: Bob Bernstein campaigned in Manor Woods (last night, Friday, after the end of the two-day holiday) and deserves credit for putting his boots on the ground in the typically ignored Hartsdale hamlet.
UPDATE: Bob Bernstein campaigned in Manor Woods (last night, Friday, after the end of the two-day holiday) and deserves credit for putting his boots on the ground in the typically ignored Hartsdale hamlet.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
UPDATED: Question for the Greenburgh Supervisor Candidates from the Tennis Playing Lobby
Questions for each of the candidates relating to the Veterans Park Tennis Courts
1. The physical condition of many of the tennis courts at Veterans Park is dismal. Are there plans to fix up the courts? If so, how will this be funded?
2. Plans were floated a few years ago to lease the courts to a private operator to install inflated bubbles to make the Veterans Park courts a year round venue. Apparently this plan stalled because of Finneran Law issues, but the law was amended in June 2012 to overcome this hurdle. Reportedly, the Town of Eastchester has entered into business relationships with Sport Time to operate the town owned courts at Lake Isle as a year-round facility that generates revenue for Eastchester. It seems that there should be way to replicate this model in Greenburgh at Veterans Park and thereby provide additional revenue to the Town. Does either candidate have a plan in place to allow the courts to become a year-round facility? In light of the Finneran law override in June 2012, was has there been no progress on this issue?
RESPONSE FROM BOB BERNSTEIN
Response to Question No. 1 The physical condition of the tennis courts at Veteran Park is appallingly poor and has been deteriorating for years with nothing being done. I am not aware of any plans to fix up the courts and/or any plans to fund such repairs. If elected, I would conduct an immediate needs assessment for the Town's parks and recreation department so we can identify and prioritize the work required to remediate the Town's recreational infrastructure. The tennis courts are not the only problem at Veteran Park. The Town's consultants reported in 2010 the pools had outlived their useful life and were in need of immediate replacement, which could cost between $8.5 and $9 million alone. I believe the Town must invest in its recreational infrastructure by borrowing at historical low interests to make the necessary capital improvements -- provided we can assure the taxpaying public that the cost of funding them can be managed efficiently.
Response to Question No. 2 Plans to contract with Sportime or another vendor to construct a part-year tennis bubble stalled when Sportime insisted, as a condition of its involvement, that the taxpayers of unincorporated Greenburgh agree to guarantee funding the cost of up to $3 million in improvements to the tennis courts. The problem with the deal is that if Sportime's venture fails, the taxpayers of unincorporated Greenburgh will be left holding the bag with no vendor in place to make sure the investment pays for itself. I would study the Eastchester model to see if it could work for Greenburgh.
RESPONSE FROM PAUL FEINER: A few years ago Sport Time offered the town a great lease --we were going to let them operate an indoor tennis facility at AF Veteran park. The tennis courts would have been enahanced without taxpayer dollars, we would have received 15 years of payments: $192,000 to $230,000 a year and a clubhouse.My opponent claimed that this was not allowed because of the Finneran law. His lawsuits against the town derailed the initiative. Last year we succeeded in getting the NYS Legislature and Governor to approve a law authorizing the town to rent the tennis courts to a private operator during off season. Sport Time changed their proposal- they wanted us to guarantee their bonds. We thought that was too risky. Getting the indoor tennis facility lease agreement is still on my agenda--as long as the town comes out ahead. I have had numerous conversations with potential tennis court operators since last year and have not given up.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Money in the 2013 Greenburgh Supervisor Primary Race - so far
Paul Feiner’s name recognition, personal popularity, and financial resources have made him a formidable candidate for more than two decades. Campaign finance disclosure reports available online at www.elections.ny.gov stretching back to 2006 show that Feiner’s campaign has consistently held between $100,000 and $150,000 in campaign funds in reserve over the past 7 years. Beyond the other advantages of incumbency, the Feiner campaign war chest is an imposing deterrent to any potential challenger, who would immediately start the brief campaign season at a six figure financial disadvantage. Although Feiner has gradually increased his monthly spending commitments in recent non-election years, the dearth of competitive elections combined with steady, low –level fundraising in off-election years, has allowed Feiner to steadily grow his war chest while also strategically distributing funds to local political and charitable organizations, further building loyalty bonds with Greenburgh voters. Whether or not Feiner has intentionally set $100,000 as the minimum level for his campaign account, retaining this amount of campaign funds in reserve has proven an intelligent choice as evidenced by the 2007 campaign when Feiner expended $110,000 during the election season - outspending his opponent and his own fundraising efforts by $40,000. Still, Feiner ended the expensive 2007 primary season with over $90,000 in the bank in contrast with his opponent who apparently ended her campaign with $40,000 of debt. It is one thing to be electorally humiliated by Feiner, but it is quite something else to also suffer financially for that dubious privilege.
So what is going on with money in the 2013? It was unclear until the May 21 Greenburgh Democratic Party convention whether Feiner would be challenged in the Sept. 10th Democratic primary for the position of Town Supervisor. Feiner may not have expected any challenge as he did relatively little fundraising early in 2013, raising only $300. This lackadaisical early effort must also have arisen from the comfort that, at the time of the convention, Feiner’s campaign held $132,977 in funds. With the announcement of Bernstein’s nomination, Feiner immediately ramped up his fundraising. Between May 21st and July 2nd, he raised $12,570, including from 40 donors who gave at least $100 each. After this initial burst of activity, however, Feiner’s fundraising quickly and surprisingly plummeted. In the eight weeks between July 2nd and August 25th, Feiner’s campaign raised only an additional $2,297, including 14 $100 or more donors (in contrast with the $14,700 Feiner raised during the same eight week period in 2007). While Feiner was raising $14,867 dating back to Bernstein’s May 21st nomination, he was also spending $44,712. Much of this money ($15,305) went to the legal bills paid by Feiner’s campaign for the unsuccessful attempt to knock Bernstein off the Sept. ballot by challenging the validity of ballot petitions and signatures. An additional $14,000 went toward mailing and printing costs in the past few weeks: presumably for the flyers recently sent to Greenburgh residents. In sum, while Feiner had spent almost $30,000 more than he had raised in 2013, he still held $103,131 in campaign funds with two weeks remaining in the campaign. (Note: of course the expenditures do not include expenses incurred but not paid or billed as of the financial disclosure date).
With his nomination on May 21, Bob Bernstein was starting the campaign with a $132,977 financial disadvantage compared to his candidate. Bernstein, too, appeared to get caught off-guard by his nomination and did not have his fundraising organization in place to accept contributions until June 1st. In his first five weeks of activity, however, Bernstein’s fundraising efforts were successful: between June 1st and July 11th, the Bernstein campaign collected $28,150, including 51 donations of $100 of more. (With a ten day head start, Feiner collected less than half that amount). But while Feiner’s fundraising dived precipitously since early July, Bernstein’s fundraising efforts remained strong, garnering $19,875, including 87 large donors ($100 or more). Significantly, in contrast with Berger’s donors in 2007, who included many from outside Greenburgh, nearly all of Bernstein’s large donors listed Greenburgh or 10583 zip code addresses. While Bernstein has raised $48,025, he has also spent $35,510. Bernstein’s largest vendor (at $23,450, or 2/3 of all expenditures) is Pivot Group, described on its website as “a voter communications firm specializing in providing direct mail, advance targeting and strategic guidance to Democratic campaigns..” http://www.thepivot.com/wp
Summary: as of late August, Bernstein has raised $48,025 including about 140 individual donations of $100 or more. Feiner, by contrast, has raised $14,867 during the same period, even with a head start of about ten days. But while Bernstein has raised $33,158 more than Feiner during this campaign, the Feiner campaign’s deep pockets have come into play, allowing Feiner to spent $44,712 (a campaign cash flow deficit of nearly $30,000) while Bernstein’s campaign has spent $35,510, or $9,202 less than Feiner. Although Feiner has raised much less and spent significantly more than Bernstein’s campaign through August 25th, Feiner still holds a huge financial advantage of more than $90,000, holding $103,132 in campaign funds in contrast with Bernstein’s account balance of $12,515.
Comparison to 2007: The 2007 campaign started three months earlier than the 2013 campaign as Berger began collecting funds in early March. Simultaneously, Feiner energized his own fundraising. From the campaign’s start in March through the late August “11 Day Pre-Primay” reporting date, Feiner raised about $43,000 through late August ($28,000 more than in the later starting 2013 campaign season) and spent $37,288 ($7,424 less than he has already spent in the shorter 2013 campaign), ending the same period in 2007 with a cash balance of $141,687 ($38,555 more than the 2013 late August balance of $103,131).
Berger had already started her fundraising in early March in 2007, three months ahead of Bernstein’s start date of June 1 in 2013. By late August, Berger had raised $34,168 – not including $30,000 she loaned to her own campaign - contrasted with Bernstein who has raised $48,025, or $13,857 more during a campaign season that has been three-months shorter than Berger’s in 2007. Berger had also spent $57,604 by late August (running out of money in the process) , compared to Bernstein’s spending $35,510 ($22,094 less than Berger) during the same time period while also keeping his campaign solvent.
Conclusion: Defeating Paul Feiner cannot be accomplished by outspending Greenburgh’s twenty two year incumbent. Bernstein’s fundraising success has been impressive and Feiner’s fundraising efforts have been surprisingly lax so far. Nevertheless, in light of Feiner’s $132,977 head start, it is impossible in a short campaign season for Bernstein or any challenger to match Feiner’s inexhaustible financial resources. Just to maintain his campaign spending levels to date, Bernstein cannot relax his fundraising. The Berger campaign’s financial travails demonstrate how it is easy to run out of money when challenging Feiner. It will be interesting watch future financial disclosure reports to see whether Feiner’s financial advantage will force another challenger’s campaign into financial distress or if Bernstein’s campaign will continue their successful fundraising.
In contrast with 2007, the 2013 fundraising data may suggest a certain lack of enthusiasm among Feiner donors or, conversely, that the Feiner team is very confident about the Sept. 10th primary. But, despite his calls recent calls on facebook for more money, Feiner has no deeper financial concerns other than how best to allocate his extensive resources. Feiner’s only serious concern is whether the network of personal loyalty and name recognition he has built over two decades can turn out more than 4,000 voters on Sept. 10th.
[Note: Judith Beville has not submitted financial disclosures to the State of New York and is apparently not providing financial support to her co-campaign with Feiner.]
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The Non-Debate of 8/22
So Feiner didn't show up at the CGCA - glad I didn't head over there after all. Feiner ducked the event, but that was certainly the astute move for him to make. He is an incumbent with a colossal money advantage ($116,500 for Feiner v. $25,000 for Bernstein, as of mid-August) and he won more than comfortably the last time around (2007). Feiner must be self-aware enough to know that his strength lies not in oratory but in person-to-person formats. There was no strategic sense in his taking on an experienced trial attorney in a one-on-one format in a forum (CGCA) which Feiner must deem hostile. Feiner simply had nothing to gain from this debate. And give Feiner credit: he made a tactically sound choice by having the community cable station air - in place of his appearance at the debate - a prepared video where he could address the points he wanted to make. I think conceptually, the video was a great idea as an alternative to a debate. But, this is also where his campaign stumbled and looked sloppy. How could campaign consultant Carla Caro release that cheap, amateurish video? The Feiner campaign certainly has the financial resources to produce a professional video. Instead, the video that appeared on Verizon 35 looked like it was filmed on someone's smart phone. Plus, Feiner compounded the poor effect by not rehearsing well. The Feiner team really fumbled the opportunity to create a smooth, professional looking presentation to show their candidate at his best. But, does any of this make a difference? Probably not too much: how many people will see the video anyway?
I only got to see a small part of Bernstein un-debate presentation, but I liked his reasoned, measured response to the town professional manager issue.
One point about Feiner's video: Fortress Bible was all about traffic on Dobbs Ferry Road? I've read the lengthy trial court decision and this certainly didn't come out strongly as the town's central objection: I remember reading about the town's contriving objections to parking spaces and drainage. Who came up with this talking point and when?
I only got to see a small part of Bernstein un-debate presentation, but I liked his reasoned, measured response to the town professional manager issue.
One point about Feiner's video: Fortress Bible was all about traffic on Dobbs Ferry Road? I've read the lengthy trial court decision and this certainly didn't come out strongly as the town's central objection: I remember reading about the town's contriving objections to parking spaces and drainage. Who came up with this talking point and when?
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Response from Paul Feiner to my Ballot Signature Posts
Thank you to Paul Feiner for submitting the following response in the comment section to yesterday's post [D. Weinfeld]:
Saturday, August 3, 2013
More about Feiner's ballot petition signature gambit
The decision of Judge Orazio R. Bellantoni of the NY Sup. Crt of the Westchester Co., in the matter of Archibald Mussington (Objector) and Paul Feiner and Judith Beville ("Aggrieved Candidates") v. the West. Co. Board of Elections, Robert Bernstein and Sherron Fantauzzi (Index No. 2891/13) is informative on several levels. First, this makes it almost certain that Feiner was actively involved (and without any doubt approved) the accusations of fraud against Bernstein and Fantauzzi. I don't know Archibald Mussington but, unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that he didn't plan this maneuver and retain attorney Alan Goldston completely on his own and pay the attorney's fee out of his own pocket.
What's particularly interesting is that because of bad planning or lawyering on the part of Feiner's team, the judge's decision doesn't actually get to the substance of Mussington/Feiner's accusations of ballot fraud. Essentially, the judge's opinion states, if the accusations of fraud were valid, the petition challenges would also have invalidated the petitions of Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner and Arne Povella. The complaint failed to name the latter three candidates and, consequently, the judge threw out the complaint.
I'm not sure what to make of this: the Feiner team's decision to challenge only the signatures of Bernstein and Fantauzzi, and not the other candidates for whom signatures were collected at the same time, implies that the complaint was not founded on any serious believe that Bernstein and Fantauzzi collected signatures fraudulently. It can be reasonably concluded that Feiner's team meant only to harass these candidates by causing them to divert time and money from the campaign by spending days preparing their case and appearing in court. Alternatively, if Feiner's team was serious about the fraud allegations, then the judge's decision implies that their case filing was incompetently prepared. If the latter were indeed the situation, will Feiner amend and refile the ballot challenges? If he sincerely believes that fraud was indeed committed, he should certainly do so. Otherwise, we'll conclude that the Feiner team was bluffing all along. (On the other hand, do Bernstein/Fantauzzi have a potential claim against Feiner for frivolous litigation?)
One other correction to my earlier post: this case did not cost the Bernstein campaign actual money since (as the Bernstein campaign corrected me) attorney Suzanne Berger, who ably represented Bernstein and Fantauzzi, volunteered her services.
So, what exactly was the point of all this? I would greatly appreciate hearing from the Feiner campaign with an explanation of their thinking.
What's particularly interesting is that because of bad planning or lawyering on the part of Feiner's team, the judge's decision doesn't actually get to the substance of Mussington/Feiner's accusations of ballot fraud. Essentially, the judge's opinion states, if the accusations of fraud were valid, the petition challenges would also have invalidated the petitions of Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner and Arne Povella. The complaint failed to name the latter three candidates and, consequently, the judge threw out the complaint.
I'm not sure what to make of this: the Feiner team's decision to challenge only the signatures of Bernstein and Fantauzzi, and not the other candidates for whom signatures were collected at the same time, implies that the complaint was not founded on any serious believe that Bernstein and Fantauzzi collected signatures fraudulently. It can be reasonably concluded that Feiner's team meant only to harass these candidates by causing them to divert time and money from the campaign by spending days preparing their case and appearing in court. Alternatively, if Feiner's team was serious about the fraud allegations, then the judge's decision implies that their case filing was incompetently prepared. If the latter were indeed the situation, will Feiner amend and refile the ballot challenges? If he sincerely believes that fraud was indeed committed, he should certainly do so. Otherwise, we'll conclude that the Feiner team was bluffing all along. (On the other hand, do Bernstein/Fantauzzi have a potential claim against Feiner for frivolous litigation?)
One other correction to my earlier post: this case did not cost the Bernstein campaign actual money since (as the Bernstein campaign corrected me) attorney Suzanne Berger, who ably represented Bernstein and Fantauzzi, volunteered her services.
So, what exactly was the point of all this? I would greatly appreciate hearing from the Feiner campaign with an explanation of their thinking.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Panem et Circenses
The Feiner campaign’s Hail Mary pass – a play designed to end all this election nonsense once and for all - fell well short of the goal line, but did gain the Feiner team some yardage. Enthusiastic friends of Paul (I don’t know if anyone officially on the campaign payroll was involved) raised objections to the Board of Elections about the validity of the signatures on Bernstein’s ballot petitions and also questioned the validity of those petitions for using the name “Bob” instead of “Robert.” The Bernstein campaign announced that after a couple of days of court time the presiding judge rejected the Feiner team's the challenges, allowing the primary to proceed with two names on the ballot, instead of the single “choice” that has appeared in the last two Greenburgh Supervisor primaries.
It can be reasonably assumed that this scheme to remove Bernstein from the ballot was coordinated with the Feiner campaign. Feiner, of course, has used this tactic to eliminate previous challengers before voters could be given a chance to participate. According to this Journal News article from 2009 (http://www.lohud.com/article/
According to the Bernstein campaign, Feiner’s challenge was litigated by experienced election law attorney Alan Goldston. (In the continual small-world ironies that repeatedly arise, Goldston co-chaired an election law seminar with Bill Greenawalt last year). I’ld be curious to know who retained Goldston. It’s always interesting to find out where one’s campaign contributions end up.
This sort of gamesmanship is encouraged by New York state’s arcane and archaic ballot petition rules which heavily favor well-funded incumbents who can afford the litigation that ensues from petition challenges. This is nasty, Tammany Hall politics, but it is par for the course in New York. Who can blame Feiner’s campaign advisors for engaging in such tactics? After all, elections require spending, which in turn requires fundraising. During the last competitive supervisor’s race, Feiner’s campaign raised $70,000 and spend $110,000. We can surely expect the same levels this year. Isn’t this time-consuming democratic process really just an expensive, time-consuming annoyance that diverts focus from problem solving? Even though this year the Feiner campaign failed in its main goal of stopping the primary before it reached the voters, the tactic was effective in that it did serve to distract the Bernstein campaign during these crucial weeks before the great August vacation season. As I’ve pointed out, there really isn’t much campaigning time left when voters can be expected to be accessible and engaged. In addition, the litigation certainly cost Bernstein’s campaign thousands of dollars. Starting with a $140,000 lead in funding, the Feiner campaign – if it is indeed paying for Goldston’s services – can easily absorb this sort of financial tab. Petition challenges are the definition of low risk/high return. And they are entertaining!
Monday, July 22, 2013
What would you ask the candidates?
There is no scheduled debate and the candidates for supervisor do not hold press conferences. If you had the opportunity to ask Feiner or Bernstein a question about Greenburgh matters, what would it be?
Monday, July 15, 2013
Money in the Greenburgh Town Supervisor Race: the 2007 edition
Money is the oxygen that sustains politics. How does money operate in Greenburgh elections? We can get a sense of the scope of the role of money in our politics by examining the campaign finance disclosure reports available at the NY State Board of Elections website. The July financials for Feiner and Bernstein have just been released. But to make sense of this information it is beneficial to gain some context from previous primary campaigns. The NY BOE website only has filings available back to 2006, so the money numbers for the contested Feiner-Greenawalt election are not readily accessible. The 2007 financials from the Feiner-Berger are posted on-line and are revealing.
Feiner came into the spring/summer 2007 campaign season with $138,590 in his campaign chest. Astutely, he had actively fundraised during 2006, raising $32,000 and spending $14,000 in that year. Getting his fundraising operation in order paid off well: right out of the gates, he had a great early 2007, raising $30,000 by early July. Overall, during the 2007 political season, running through the election, the Feiner campaign raised almost $70,000. He also spent $110,013 during this same period.
Berger collected $38,000 from various contributors, but she also loaned or donated to her campaign $43,300 of her own money. In total, the Berger campaign spent $81,390 on the 2007 campaign.
Where did the money come from?
Nearly all of Berger’s contributions came from individuals, with a surprising number – nearly half of listed donors - living outside Greenburgh. A few local law firms contributed as well as several political “friends of” groups, including Richard Brodsky, and $1,300 from Andy Spano’s campaign. Interestingly, town board member Diana Juettner contributed to the Berger campaign. Ironically, while the Feiner campaign made a donation to the Lois Bronz Center, Lois Bronz contributed to Berger.
Feiner also relied on contributions from individuals, but Feiner accumulated well more than double the number of individual donors as did his opponent. [The exact number of donors is impossible to ascertain since the reports NY Board of Elections filings only identify donors individually who give $100 or more.] Significantly, the vast majority of Feiner’s donors were Greenburgh residents. And the rate of Feiner donations stayed strong throughout the campaign, unlike Berger’s numbers which dropped off after a strong start. In addition, Feiner got larger contributions from a bigger roster of local companies, including several Westchester Co. law firms, plus support from local unions, particularly the Teamsters. One interesting 527 contribution was $2500 from the Stars and Stripes PAC of the Building and Reality Institute – a builder and developer lobbying group.
Where did the money go?
Most campaign spending went toward preparing mailings, postage and other campaign material. Feiner spent more on the operations of his campaign office. But Feiner got a discount with his campaign consultant: he paid Allyson Felix only $6,500 compared to Berger’s paying Kimberly Ditomasso $12,000 for the campaign. Feiner also spread his money around locally much more than his challenger. While handing thousands of dollars to New York printing and publicity material businesses, Feiner’s campaign was also sending contributions to numerous political groups, including all the local Democratic Party committees and the Working Families Party, and to a myriad of charities, such as the NAACP, UJA, Chabad, the Kiwanis, churches, etc. Berger’s campaign, on the other hand, was spending a lot of money on one consultant in particular, with their biggest expenditure – more than 43% of her expenses - going to 360 JMG LLP – a DC based branding/p.r. company. When you add in Ditomasso’s payment, you’ll see that 58% of Berger's spending went to those two sources. With a lot more money raised, Feiner could easily afford to pay one vendor $11,000 for “creative services” or try out stunts like renting a 4 person bicycle for $780.
BOTTOM LINE:
Altogether, the two candidates spent $191,403 on the 2007 campaign. That translates to $29.41 per Democratic Party primary voter. Feiner not only outraised and outspent his opponent, but he also got a much bigger bang for his buck, spending only $25.50 per vote compared to Berger’s per vote cost of $37.12. By coincidence, each campaign outspent its fundraising by $40,000. I imagine that this was a strain on the Berger campaign, but Feiner, with his campaign war chest, could painlessly absorb this deficit financing. Furthermore, while Feiner had the advantage of starting off with $130,000, his fundraising operation did not rely on this cushion. His political team continued to raise money relentlessly, even after the primary. Furthermore, Feiner demonstrated his characteristic political acumen by gathering money from a wide variety of sources and distributing this money among a large number of vendors, political committees and charitable groups. In fact, Feiner’s fundraising methods can be compared to his managerial emphasis on constituent service, which builds electoral loyalty by focusing on direct and repeated contact with a large number of potential voters. The two approaches reinforce each other by creating and maintaining a dependable and loyal voter base in Greenburgh.
[SOURCE: All this information can be found in the campaign financial disclosure filings at http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html ].
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Those stultifying days of July... UPDATED: Paul goes back on the attack
With the summer heat and humidity, the campaign
has settled into the same bleary-eyed torpor as my dog. The only substantive development in the
last several weeks is that both campaigns submitted their signature lists to
get on the ballot. Although only
1000 signatures from Greenburgh residents who are registered Democrats are
required, Bernstein submitted 1,500 signatures, and Feiner… drumroll… presented
4,000 signatures. It
will take about 4,000 votes to win this primary, so if Feiner can rely on his
petition signers to turn out, he’s already in good shape. I never encountered Feiner
petitioners in my neighborhood but the Bernstein campaign did visit Mercer Ave. seeking
signatures.
Neither candidate showed up at the Manor Woods
July 4th Dog Parade.
This ten year tradition is probably the largest Manor Woods community
event and it would have been a good, low-key campaigning opportunity.
After initial indications of panic, Feiner has quickly
regained his confidence and is giving the impression that he expects to win
handily. His campaign machine is
mobilized: getting the signatures and contacting residents directly (I got a phone message last week from
his campaign). He’s no longer
taking shots at Bernstein, but instead focuses solely on the myriad on-going,
new, and proposed programs he publicizes and takes credit for through his usual
blizzard of press releases. Just in the last two weeks, Feiner has
been promoting composting, green technology, road re-paving, gym renovations
and… the girl scouts! Talk about
covering your bases. Reading Paul’s various social media feeds
recently, you wouldn’t know about his opponent. This is a sage approach. Like the Clintons, Feiner is perpetually campaigning. He’s won many elections and knows what
he’s doing. Heck, he won his last
primary with nearly 70% of the vote.
Feiner would be foolish to
get drawn into the weeds by
responding to Bernstein’s allegations of fiscal mismanagement. Instead,
Paul should stick to what has always succeeded: a positive message grounded in
his untiring constituent service.
If I were Feiner, I would avoid debates and pretend that Bernstein doesn’t
exist. But then, what do I know?
An interesting issue is that with the primary
scheduled for Sept. 10th, is that we have an extended summer this
year. With Labor Day on
Sept. 2, followed by Rosh Ha-shanah beginning the evening of Sept. 4th,
schools are not opening for regular classes until Sept. 9. With the start of vacation season
beginning in mid-August – those days when open seats abound on Metro North - the timeframe for candidates to
communicate with residents is rapidly drawing to a close. If one assumes that no one
will be paying attention beginning with the week of Aug 18th, the
campaign really only has 5 weeks left.
Next... we're going to start looking at Greenburgh campaign financing.
UPDATE: Feiner sent me an invite to "like" his campaign FB page this morning. The first post I found - dated 7/11- was a surprisingly snide attack insinuatnig that Bernstein is too lazy to do Paul's job because he wants to appoint a professional town manager. I'm very surprised by the smug tone which is not characteristic of Feiner's writing. The post is written in the third-person but is not signed by the author. I suggest that Feiner exercise some quality control and "supervise" FB postings written in his name.
UPDATE: Feiner sent me an invite to "like" his campaign FB page this morning. The first post I found - dated 7/11- was a surprisingly snide attack insinuatnig that Bernstein is too lazy to do Paul's job because he wants to appoint a professional town manager. I'm very surprised by the smug tone which is not characteristic of Feiner's writing. The post is written in the third-person but is not signed by the author. I suggest that Feiner exercise some quality control and "supervise" FB postings written in his name.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Gettysburg 150th Commemoration
The ceremony Sunday afternoon at the White Plains Rural Cemetery exceeded all possible expectations. Nearly 70 guests braved the heat and oppressive humidity and the threat of thunderstorms. Michael Bennett, commander of the Dan Sickles SUV Camp, who assembled and programmed the entire commemoration, acted as master of ceremonies and spoke with his usual eloquence, good humor, and aplomb. We were called to attention by a uniformed soldier and bugler and recitation of the pledge of allegiance. Then followed talks delivered by Michael and me intending to convey the importance of Gettysburg in our American narrative and to tell the stories of Westchester men who fought there. A number of local dignitaries delivered appropriate and informed comments and each expressed the resonance that the story of Gettysburg had for their own lives. We appreciated the attendance and remarks from State Senators Andrea Stewart-Cousins and George Latimer, Assemblyman David Buchwald, county Legislator Bill Ryan, White Plains City Councilor Milagros Lecuona, and an official from the New York Division of Veterans Affairs. There were several special moments, including a beautiful rendition of the Star Spangled Banner and a very moving reading of the Gettysburg Address by three White Plains school children (who patiently tolerated the entire event before taking their turn). The hour+ concluded with the bugler playing taps as three descendants of Civil War soldiers laid a wreath on the GAR monument. A special surprise was the attendance of Theodore F. Flandreau V whose direct ancestor, Theodore F. Flandreau fought at Gettysburg and lived at various times in Greenburgh. It was truly a remarkable and meaningful afternoon.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Gettysburg 150th Anniversary Commemoration
I know this is a bit off topic, but it's my blog. Michael Bennett, commander of the local Sons of Union Veterans Camp, and I co-direct a Civil War Speakers Series that takes place the first Wednesday of each month at the White Plains Historical Society's Purdy House. We've enjoyed a variety of speakers over the past year who have spoken on a surprising range of topics related to the Civil War era. This weekend we are trying something different: we'll be commemorating the Battle of Gettysburg which took place July 1 through 3, in 1863 - 150 year ago this coming week. The event will take place this Sunday, June 30 at 2 pm at the White Plains Rural Cemetery, 167 N. Broadway, White Plains. We'll have a recitation of the Gettysburg address, singing of the national anthem and a brief talk about the significance of Gettysburg with particular focus on the dozen veterans of the battle who are buried at the White Plains Rural Cemetery. We'll tell the stories of men like Greenburgh residents George Lewis and Edward W. Bogart, who served in the 95th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment and fought on all three days of the battle. Local dignitaries have said they will attend, including White Plains Mayor Tom Roach, Assemblyman Bill Ryan and a representative from Governor Cuomo's office. All are invited to attend and participate in this unique opportunity to remember the turning point of the Civil War and the men who served there to preserve our nation united and free.
Monday, June 24, 2013
The past week in the Greenburgh Town Supervisor's race
This past week, both campaigns revved up their presentation packages.
1. Both candidates were out this weekend engaging in the archaic requirement of obtaining petition signatures. Apparently New York (of course) is one of the few states that requires filing petitions. According to the www.gothamgazette.com website, ballot petitions, with their strict requirements, open up hopeful candidates to a myriad of potential procedural errors and give opponents many opportunities to kick their challengers off the ballot. While initiated in the 19th century as a pro-democratic reform, New York’s ballot petition process has devolved into an electioneering “blood sport” that enriches campaign consultants and lawyers while reducing the democratic choices for the electorate. The Feiner campaign has taken advantage of this electioneering loophole in 2009 to end an opponents campaign before it ever began. Some might argue that this is a subversion of democracy. It would be admirable if both campaigns and their affiliated workers and friends agree to refrain from the notorious practice of ballot petition challenges.
2. Paul Feiner now has a “Paul Feiner for Greenburgh Town Supervisor” facebook page where he has been very active. So far he has posted on infrastructure improvements at the TYCC, a detailed campaign biography (which appears to be out of date since it refers to construction of the library), and a statement on the Frank’s Nursery embroglio asking for residents’ input.
3. Bob Bernstein launched his website www.bobforsupervisor.com . It’s easy to navigate and full of well-written position pieces. For example, check out the “issues” section, where Bernstein goes beyond his “four pillars of Feiner incompetence” attack to examine fundamental issues of town management. The “price of Paul” is terrific (although horrifying too).
4. The Rosenberg Letter: the Bernstein campaign landed a solid left hook with Judge Herb Rosenberg’s statement distancing himself from prior affiliation with Feiner and now enthusiastically endorsing Bernstein. The letter is all the more effective for Rosenberg’s admission of previous conflicts with Bernstein. He writes that he now sees Feiner as unreliable and Bernstein as restoring managerial competency.
5. The vegetative residue remaining at the abandoned Frank’s Nursery site continues to rot and the stench scares away cicadas. Feiner came out with a statement on his FB page explaining his call for a new RFP (I can’t figure out how to link to FB postings here). Judge Rosenberg responded. http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/open-letter-from-former-justice.html
6. Hartsdale’s very special holiday, known to others as the town Property Tax Grievance deadline, was observed this past June 18th. I understand that a Charlie Brown special is in development. Don’t expect either candidate to acknowledge the property value crisis in Hartsdale: their respective property values are secure.
2. Paul Feiner now has a “Paul Feiner for Greenburgh Town Supervisor” facebook page where he has been very active. So far he has posted on infrastructure improvements at the TYCC, a detailed campaign biography (which appears to be out of date since it refers to construction of the library), and a statement on the Frank’s Nursery embroglio asking for residents’ input.
3. Bob Bernstein launched his website www.bobforsupervisor.com . It’s easy to navigate and full of well-written position pieces. For example, check out the “issues” section, where Bernstein goes beyond his “four pillars of Feiner incompetence” attack to examine fundamental issues of town management. The “price of Paul” is terrific (although horrifying too).
4. The Rosenberg Letter: the Bernstein campaign landed a solid left hook with Judge Herb Rosenberg’s statement distancing himself from prior affiliation with Feiner and now enthusiastically endorsing Bernstein. The letter is all the more effective for Rosenberg’s admission of previous conflicts with Bernstein. He writes that he now sees Feiner as unreliable and Bernstein as restoring managerial competency.
5. The vegetative residue remaining at the abandoned Frank’s Nursery site continues to rot and the stench scares away cicadas. Feiner came out with a statement on his FB page explaining his call for a new RFP (I can’t figure out how to link to FB postings here). Judge Rosenberg responded. http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/open-letter-from-former-justice.html
6. Hartsdale’s very special holiday, known to others as the town Property Tax Grievance deadline, was observed this past June 18th. I understand that a Charlie Brown special is in development. Don’t expect either candidate to acknowledge the property value crisis in Hartsdale: their respective property values are secure.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
This Past Week in the Greenburgh Supervisor's Race
A selection of issues that caught my attention over the last week or so related to the Supervisor campaign:
1. Frank’s Nursery no longer fosters the growth of seedlings into house plants. Instead, this particular nursery nurtures invasive bittersweet vines whose tangled tendrils are thorny narratives. In the past week, the town board has reversed its earlier initiative to push through a deal to allow the GameOn company to develop the contaminated Frank's Nursery site as a “sports bubble” facility. Apparently, the relentless criticism by the opponents of this proposed deal has caused certain town board members to hesitate on proceeding with GameOn and instead return to an RFP process: http://www.lohud.com/article/20130613/NEWS02/306130110/Paul-Feiner-suggests-sealed-bidding-old-Greenburgh-nursery-land?nclick_check=1
I would assume that Feiner is going back to square one because he no longer has the 3 votes he needs to approve a deal with GameOn. Bernstein and “William” at abettergreenburgh have given their allies credit for this reversal. See:
http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/public-forces-feiner-capitulation.html
Opponents of the GameOn deal have consistently stressed the financial foolhardiness: GameOn’s offer is much less and riskier than another offer proposed by House of Sports (although, I suspect, there is a lot bluffing going on here by all parties involved). This comes after the collapse of an earlier discussed lease of the property (supported by a town-wide referendum pushed by Feiner this past fall to elicit public approval), which the state determined ran contrary to state rules mandating sale of government foreclosed property (i.e., the town shouldn't be a commercial real estate landlord).
Election impact: Will Feiner gain a strategic victory amid a tactical defeat? Bernstein’s campaign is all about accusations of Feiner’s alleged financial mismanagement of town affairs. Frank’s Nursery is one of the central pillars of Bernstein’s argument. Feiner seemed to concede Bernstein’s argument on Franks’ by retreating from plans, on-going for more than a year, to work out a deal with GameOn. But there may be a clever calculation by Feiner behind this surrender: returning to an RFP process will take a few months. It seems reasonable to posit that Feiner concluded that good politics dictated punting on his deal with GameOn now, - 83 days before the election – and, thereby, taking off the table one of his opponent's most dramatic accusations (after all, Bernstein held his candidacy announcement at the Frank’s Nursery haunted house).
But if Feiner is conceding a pawn to catch his opponent off guard, Bernstein, after some hesitancy, is not taking the easy piece off the chessboard and moving on (how many metaphors can we mix into this post?). Yesterday, Bernstein alleged that even this apparently fair RFP process is really just another scheme to benefit GameOn. See his argument at http://bobforsupervisor.com/news/RFP_is_Yet_Another_Backroom_Deal Any statement from the Feiner responding to Bernstein's allegations?
2. WestHelp: The Board continues to pursue a deal to lease this affordable housing property to a company called MRH. Bernstein has made Westhelp one of the four pillars of his allegations of Feiner managerial incompetence (along with Frank’s, Fortress Bible, and the Valhalla School payments). The mysterious “Wiliiam” at ABG posts Bernstein’s release on this issue (apparently I’m not on the press release email lists) http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/bernstein-on-westhelp.html
I’m happy to post any response from Feiner’s team, if they will sent it to me.
3. Positive messages (focusing on past and planned achievements instead of digs at the opponents) should always get attention: Feiner released a list of “15 of many accomplishments since the last election” on his website: http://www.paulfeiner.com/featured/thinking-out-of-the-box-a-vision-for-a-better-future/
It’s a nice list and a good reminder of a lot of the day-to-day goings-on in the town and the sort of things Feiner does in addition to constituent services. (Also, Feiner updated “the next two years” section of his website). Feiner also released a campaign flyer with a nifty retro design and list of achievements.
Bernstein should be complimented on his new website: http://www.bobforsupervisor.com. It’s a professional looking campaign site that warrants exploration. For example, clicking on “issues” leads right to “TAXES” which shows that Bernstein recognizes the heart of the matter in suburban politics. The “Price of Paul” section is very effective.
1. Frank’s Nursery no longer fosters the growth of seedlings into house plants. Instead, this particular nursery nurtures invasive bittersweet vines whose tangled tendrils are thorny narratives. In the past week, the town board has reversed its earlier initiative to push through a deal to allow the GameOn company to develop the contaminated Frank's Nursery site as a “sports bubble” facility. Apparently, the relentless criticism by the opponents of this proposed deal has caused certain town board members to hesitate on proceeding with GameOn and instead return to an RFP process: http://www.lohud.com/article/20130613/NEWS02/306130110/Paul-Feiner-suggests-sealed-bidding-old-Greenburgh-nursery-land?nclick_check=1
I would assume that Feiner is going back to square one because he no longer has the 3 votes he needs to approve a deal with GameOn. Bernstein and “William” at abettergreenburgh have given their allies credit for this reversal. See:
http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/public-forces-feiner-capitulation.html
Opponents of the GameOn deal have consistently stressed the financial foolhardiness: GameOn’s offer is much less and riskier than another offer proposed by House of Sports (although, I suspect, there is a lot bluffing going on here by all parties involved). This comes after the collapse of an earlier discussed lease of the property (supported by a town-wide referendum pushed by Feiner this past fall to elicit public approval), which the state determined ran contrary to state rules mandating sale of government foreclosed property (i.e., the town shouldn't be a commercial real estate landlord).
Election impact: Will Feiner gain a strategic victory amid a tactical defeat? Bernstein’s campaign is all about accusations of Feiner’s alleged financial mismanagement of town affairs. Frank’s Nursery is one of the central pillars of Bernstein’s argument. Feiner seemed to concede Bernstein’s argument on Franks’ by retreating from plans, on-going for more than a year, to work out a deal with GameOn. But there may be a clever calculation by Feiner behind this surrender: returning to an RFP process will take a few months. It seems reasonable to posit that Feiner concluded that good politics dictated punting on his deal with GameOn now, - 83 days before the election – and, thereby, taking off the table one of his opponent's most dramatic accusations (after all, Bernstein held his candidacy announcement at the Frank’s Nursery haunted house).
But if Feiner is conceding a pawn to catch his opponent off guard, Bernstein, after some hesitancy, is not taking the easy piece off the chessboard and moving on (how many metaphors can we mix into this post?). Yesterday, Bernstein alleged that even this apparently fair RFP process is really just another scheme to benefit GameOn. See his argument at http://bobforsupervisor.com/news/RFP_is_Yet_Another_Backroom_Deal Any statement from the Feiner responding to Bernstein's allegations?
2. WestHelp: The Board continues to pursue a deal to lease this affordable housing property to a company called MRH. Bernstein has made Westhelp one of the four pillars of his allegations of Feiner managerial incompetence (along with Frank’s, Fortress Bible, and the Valhalla School payments). The mysterious “Wiliiam” at ABG posts Bernstein’s release on this issue (apparently I’m not on the press release email lists) http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/bernstein-on-westhelp.html
I’m happy to post any response from Feiner’s team, if they will sent it to me.
3. Positive messages (focusing on past and planned achievements instead of digs at the opponents) should always get attention: Feiner released a list of “15 of many accomplishments since the last election” on his website: http://www.paulfeiner.com/featured/thinking-out-of-the-box-a-vision-for-a-better-future/
It’s a nice list and a good reminder of a lot of the day-to-day goings-on in the town and the sort of things Feiner does in addition to constituent services. (Also, Feiner updated “the next two years” section of his website). Feiner also released a campaign flyer with a nifty retro design and list of achievements.
Bernstein should be complimented on his new website: http://www.bobforsupervisor.com. It’s a professional looking campaign site that warrants exploration. For example, clicking on “issues” leads right to “TAXES” which shows that Bernstein recognizes the heart of the matter in suburban politics. The “Price of Paul” section is very effective.
Monday, June 17, 2013
2007 Town Supervisor Democratic Primary: Paul Feiner - Come Back Player of the Year
Let’s re-examine the results of the 2007 Democratic Party primary for Greenburgh Town Supervisor – the last such contested primary until this Sept. 10th. After the close race of 2005, Paul Feiner appeared very vulnerable. An axis of opposition stretched from Irvington to Ardsley village to the Edgemont school district. Support in several neighborhoods was tepid at best. Most ominous for Feiner was that he had barely held Hartsdale (defined here as 10530 within the Greenburgh Central school district) – the largest single voting community in the town of Greenburgh with 16% of the Democratic primary vote. With its fusion of middle-class single family homes and apartments, Hartsdale is difficult to analyze. Feiner did well in the single-family home neighborhoods of Hartsdale, but lost outright several of the apartment complex voting districts (41, 56, 57, 71). It was surprising that Hartsdale apartment dwellers – those least immediately impacted by property tax hikes – would oppose Feiner along with many of the higher property value districts.
Putting substantive issues aside for a moment, it must be recognized that Paul Feiner is a formidable politician. The “Our Campaigns” website shows his 14-3 record in primaries and elections. Feiner’s only losses came when he went above his weight class to challenge first Nick Spano for state senate way back in 1988 and then Ben Gilman for congress in 1998 and 2000 (Feiner actually fared better against Gilman than any other Democratic candidate in many years). http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=2036
2007, however, would be the test of Feiner’s future in Greenburgh. In 2005, a swing of only 100 votes would have defeated Feiner. Would 2005 prove to be the start of a downward trend that signaled the end of his career in 2007? The numbers speak for themselves. Here's the village breakdown followed by Unincorporated Greenburgh broken down by school districts:
It turns out that 2005 was an aberration. 2007 proved to be another impressive Feiner electoral victory: one of many since he first defeated the long-time incumbent to become Greenburgh Supervisor back in 1991. Feiner’s political skills were most manifest in this remarkable turnaround from 2005 as he both increased voter turnout by 14% and raised his vote total by an astounding 45%! Previous opposition holdouts fell easily to Feiner’s onslaught. Feiner won both Irvington and Ardsley villages handily, even doubling his previous vote tally in Ardsley Only Edgemont continued to resist Feiner’s charms in 2007, and even there Feiner increased his vote tally by almost 30%, gaining 43% of Edgemont’s vote. With this almost complete triumph, winning two-thirds of the Greenburgh vote, Feiner thoroughly discouraged the opposition which had gained hope of toppling him after 2005’s near-miss. Feiner had reasserted the control and regained the popularity he had enjoyed with the Democratic Party voters in the town of Greenburgh since his first victory in 1991.
How did Feiner pull off this rout? One number that jumps out is Feiner’s 63% increase in his vote total in the villages. Where Feiner had won 49% of the villages vote in 2005, only two years later he took 71%. One source claims that Feiner had focused on this weakness by running a “villages first” campaign. Whatever “villages first” means, it certainly proved incredibly successful. Another intriguing number is Feiner’s increase of 40% in his numbers in Fairview (defined here as the Greenburgh Central school district excluding the 10530 zip code) from 2005 to 2007, which was his largest increase in the major UG communities. But even these achievements do not explain Feiner’s across-the-board double digit percentage increases, even in Edgemont. Any theories?
| VILLAGE | VOTING DIST. | TOTAL | BERGER | % | FEINER | % | FEINER ^ FR. 2005 | TURNOUT ^ FR. 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TARRYTOWN | 1-7, 55, 74, 76 | 471 | 100 | 21% | 367 | 78% | 77% | 29% |
| IRVINGTON | 8-11, 60, 79 | 368 | 111 | 30% | 251 | 68% | 55% | -6% |
| DOBBS FERRY | 12-17, 58, 65. 80 | 598 | 173 | 29% | 421 | 70% | 51% | 15% |
| HASTINGS | 18-23, 52, 59 | 773 | 161 | 21% | 602 | 78% | 64% | 10% |
| ARDSLEY | 24, 25, 53, 54 | 369 | 147 | 40% | 207 | 56% | 103% | 13% |
| ELMSFORD | 26-28 | 161 | 47 | 29% | 98 | 61% | 31% | 46% |
| 2007 TOTAL | 2740 | 739 | 27% | 1946 | 71% | 63% | 13% | |
| GREEN. | FEINER | |||||||
| 2005 TOTAL | 2418 | 1168 | 48% | 1193 | 49% |
| UG SCHOOL DIST | VOTING DIST. | TOTAL | BERGER | % | FEINER | % | FEINER ^ FR. 2005 | TURNOUT ^ FR. 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDGEMONT SD | 33-35, 49, 69, 70 | 630 | 359 | 57% | 263 | 42% | 29% | 2% |
| HARTSDALE GC | 36-41, 56, 57, 66, 71, 72, 75 | 1036 | 385 | 37% | 631 | 61% | 21% | 2% |
| FAIRVIEW GC | 42, 44-46, 61, 63, 64, 78 | 967 | 301 | 31% | 613 | 63% | 40% | 27% |
| POCANTICO SD | 29, 68, 83* | 179 | 61 | 34% | 110 | 61% | 24% | 16% |
| VALHALLA SD | 47, 48, 67 | 342 | 84 | 25% | 242 | 71% | 35% | 22% |
| ARDSLEY SD | 32, 43, 50, 62 | 421 | 132 | 31% | 286 | 68% | 20% | -2% |
| ELMSFORD SD | 51, 77, 81 | 156 | 58 | 37% | 92 | 59% | 59% | 48% |
| TARRY/ELM MIX | 30 | 68 | 28 | 41% | 40 | 59% | -13% | 8% |
| IRV/ELM MIX | 31 | 58 | 20 | 34% | 38 | 66% | 23% | 12% |
| ARD/HASTING | 73 | 77 | 25 | 32% | 49 | 64% | ||
| MYSTERY | 82 | 7 | 0 | 0% | 7 | 100% | ||
| 2007 TOTAL | 3943 | 1453 | 37% | 2369 | 60% | 32% | 14% | |
| GREEN. | FEINER | |||||||
| 2005 TOTAL | 3454 | 1618 | 47% | 1790 | 52% |
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Inside the Numbers: the 2005 Supervisor's Primary
Let’s take a look at the results of the 2005 Democratic Primary for Town Supervisor. As I mentioned previously, the 2005 contest between Paul Feiner and William Greenawalt was quite close, unlike 2007, when Feiner routed Greenburgh Democratic Party chair Suzanne Berger by a 2:1 margin. I was unsure that the results listed at the Westchester Co. Board of Election website were complete because only 58 of Greenburgh voting districts were listed, compared to 83 voting districts in the primary two years later. The person I spoke to at BOE believed that a number of districts had been consolidated for the primary to save expenses. I was skeptical because I had assumed that the 2005 turnout would be larger than (what I believed to be) the less publicized race in 2007. Without further information, however, I’ll assume that the BOE is correct.
What happened in 2005? This was the closest race in Feiner’s many campaigns for Town Supervisor. Paul received 2983 (50.08%) votes, compared to 2786 (47.45%) for his challenger, William Greenawalt (there were 103 blank ballots). This translated to a margin of 197 votes.
In 2005, just over 41% of the vote came from the incorporated villages. In contrast with 2007, Feiner performed slightly worse in the villages where he won 49.34 of the ballots. Feiner did, however, have more votes than Greenawalt who trailed Feiner by 25 votes in the Villages, coming in at just over 48%. [If excluding blank ballots, Feiner had 50.5% and Greenawalt 49.5%]. Here are results broken down by village:
Feiner did slightly better in unincorporated Greenburgh ("UG" - I like that acronym) where he received 1790 votes (51.8%) versus 1618 for Greenawalt (46.8%). If taking out the blanks, Feiner goes up to 52.5% and Greenawalt down to 47.5% in UG.
The question I struggle with is how to analyze the UG vote. The “town outside” includes residents spread across numerous distinct neighborhoods in eight different school districts with addresses that can be more than 8 miles apart. The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes three “census designated places” in UG: Fairview, Hartsdale and Greenville (Edgemont). These CDPs, however, are of limited usefulness. The borders designated by the Census Bureau for these areas are quite restricted and don’t match up with the way these places are understood by their residents.
See: http://www.maptechnica.com/us-city-boundary-map/city/Hartsdale/state/NY/cityid/3632523
For example, the Hartsdale CDP does not include the Poet’s Corner neighborhood, although, I believe, people who live there consider themselves to live in Hartsdale. Certainly the location of the Hartsdale sign on W. Hartsdale Ave. suggests that's the case. For the most part, people in our area of Westchester Co. tend to identify their community by their school district. This obviously applies to Edgemont which has constructed a strong identity centered on their school system (and high property values and insane taxes that come with it). But most of UG lies in the Greenburgh Central school district ("GC") which is definitely not the focus of communal identity. You don't see Woodlands stickers decorating cars the way you see Raiders and Panthers decals. But trying to apply consistent factors to define neighborhoods devised of unrelated parcels leads to a deadend. Consequently, for purposes of this voting analysis, I’m creating an expanded definition of the CDPs Hartsdale and Fairview. For Hartsdale, I’m using the large portion of the 10530 zipcode that lies inside the GC school district. For Fairview, I’m using the northern half of the GC school district. I’m separately listing the portions of uninc. that lie outside of GC and identifying them by their school district.
NOTES: Parts of Dist. 50 appear to also lie inside GC. According to the map I received from the BOE, Dist. 30 is split between the Tarrytown SD and Elmsford SD while Dist. 31 is similarly split between split between Irvington SD and Elmsford. I have no idea if the residents in those districts predominantly identify with a particular town/school district. Also, I’m assuming that the voting districts in the 2005 primary results more or less correspond to the 81 voting districts that appear on the BOE map. There may be some discrepancies.
A few things jump out: notice the contrast between Irvington and its neighboring villages to the immediate north and south. Look at the mirror image percentages between Ardsley and Elmsford. As far as UG: Edgemont is the only district that Feiner lost (and he lost big). Contrast Edgemont, however, with Feiner’s popularity in the Valhalla school district neighborhoods. I don't understand at all the gap between Ardsley village's vote and the UG neighborhoods that are in the Ardsley SD. Next, we’ll compare these numbers with 2007 and examine how Feiner responded to these results and brilliantly adapted: just two years later, he triumphed easily.
| VILLAGE | VOTE DIST. | TOTAL | GREEN. | % | FEINER | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TARRYTOWN | 1-7, 55 | 365 | 150 | 41% | 207 | 57% |
| IRVINGTON | 8, 9, 10, 11 | 391 | 223 | 57% | 162 | 41% |
| DOBBS FER. | 12-16, 58 | 521 | 221 | 42% | 279 | 54% |
| HASTINGS | 18-23, 52 | 704 | 318 | 45% | 368 | 52% |
| ARDLSEY | 24, 25 | 327 | 222 | 68% | 102 | 31% |
| ELMSFORD | 26, 28 | 110 | 34 | 31% | 75 | 68% |
See: http://www.maptechnica.com/us-city-boundary-map/city/Hartsdale/state/NY/cityid/3632523
For example, the Hartsdale CDP does not include the Poet’s Corner neighborhood, although, I believe, people who live there consider themselves to live in Hartsdale. Certainly the location of the Hartsdale sign on W. Hartsdale Ave. suggests that's the case. For the most part, people in our area of Westchester Co. tend to identify their community by their school district. This obviously applies to Edgemont which has constructed a strong identity centered on their school system (and high property values and insane taxes that come with it). But most of UG lies in the Greenburgh Central school district ("GC") which is definitely not the focus of communal identity. You don't see Woodlands stickers decorating cars the way you see Raiders and Panthers decals. But trying to apply consistent factors to define neighborhoods devised of unrelated parcels leads to a deadend. Consequently, for purposes of this voting analysis, I’m creating an expanded definition of the CDPs Hartsdale and Fairview. For Hartsdale, I’m using the large portion of the 10530 zipcode that lies inside the GC school district. For Fairview, I’m using the northern half of the GC school district. I’m separately listing the portions of uninc. that lie outside of GC and identifying them by their school district.
| SCHOOL DIST.: | VOTING DIST. | TOTAL | GREEN. | % | FEINER % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDGEMONT | 33, 34, 35, 49 | 650 | 422 | 65% | 223 | 34% |
| GC (HARTS): | 36-41, 56, 57, 71 | 962 | 462 | 48% | 488 | 51% |
| GC (FAIR): | 42, 44, 45, 46, 64 | 759 | 304 | 40% | 438 | 58% |
| POCANTICO | 29, 68 | 154 | 62 | 40% | 89 | 58% |
| VALHALLA | 47, 48 | 280 | 98 | 35% | 179 | 64% |
| ARDSLEY: | 32, 43, 50 | 429 | 187 | 44% | 238 | 55% |
| ELMSFORD | 51 | 105 | 45 | 43% | 58 | 55% |
| TARRY/ELM: | 30 | 63 | 17 | 27% | 46 | 73% |
| IRV/ELM: | 31 | 52 | 21 | 40% | 31 | 60% |
NOTES: Parts of Dist. 50 appear to also lie inside GC. According to the map I received from the BOE, Dist. 30 is split between the Tarrytown SD and Elmsford SD while Dist. 31 is similarly split between split between Irvington SD and Elmsford. I have no idea if the residents in those districts predominantly identify with a particular town/school district. Also, I’m assuming that the voting districts in the 2005 primary results more or less correspond to the 81 voting districts that appear on the BOE map. There may be some discrepancies.
A few things jump out: notice the contrast between Irvington and its neighboring villages to the immediate north and south. Look at the mirror image percentages between Ardsley and Elmsford. As far as UG: Edgemont is the only district that Feiner lost (and he lost big). Contrast Edgemont, however, with Feiner’s popularity in the Valhalla school district neighborhoods. I don't understand at all the gap between Ardsley village's vote and the UG neighborhoods that are in the Ardsley SD. Next, we’ll compare these numbers with 2007 and examine how Feiner responded to these results and brilliantly adapted: just two years later, he triumphed easily.
Monday, June 10, 2013
The Week that Was in the Greenburgh Supervisor's Race
Here are the events of the past week connected to the campaign for Town Supervisor:
1. Feiner hits the campaign trail: Paul Feiner started actively campaigning with an appearance in Irvington that he reported on his FB page. Does this signal a return to the “villages first” strategy that proved so effective in turning out Rivertown voters in 2007? The 2007 primary demonstrated that there is a large reserve of voters in villages who can swing an election. Will this tactic be effective 6 years later? [I’ll later revisit my theory that Feiner is actually hurt by running uncontested in the last two elections: it’s been 6 years since anyone has pulled the lever for Feiner in a serious race – in that amount of time a lot of the popuation has changed].
1. Feiner hits the campaign trail: Paul Feiner started actively campaigning with an appearance in Irvington that he reported on his FB page. Does this signal a return to the “villages first” strategy that proved so effective in turning out Rivertown voters in 2007? The 2007 primary demonstrated that there is a large reserve of voters in villages who can swing an election. Will this tactic be effective 6 years later? [I’ll later revisit my theory that Feiner is actually hurt by running uncontested in the last two elections: it’s been 6 years since anyone has pulled the lever for Feiner in a serious race – in that amount of time a lot of the popuation has changed].
2. Frank's Nursery Chaos: see this piece over at the Journal News lohud site by Greg Shilliglaw: http://www.lohud.com/article/20130606/NEWS02/306060088/Game-deal-off-Greenburgh-courts-rival-offer-nursery?nclick_check=1
describing the latest bizarre developments in this twisted tale. Despite’s Feiner’s Captain Ahab-like perseveration on pursing a deal with the Game On 365 company to develop the site as an 8 story tall “sport’s bubble” (i.e., the White Whale of Greenburgh), the Town Board is now offering the site to competitor House of Sports. It seems that Game On is now putting together a project with the neighboring golf driving range. The Board is scrambling to "accept" House of Sports’ bid. Why didn’t the Board deal with HOS – who apparently gave a significantly higher bid – from the beginning? Is the Board seriously contemplating the possibility of two developments of large sports facilities on adjacent properties along a two lane road next to a residential neighborhood? Is Game On bluffing the Board and the Board, in turn, bluffing HOS, which may have been bluffing the Board all along? What kind of riverboat card game is going on here? Who will blink first? You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run!
Read Shillinglaw’s article for a useful summary. It’s also the top story at Greenburgh Daily Voice: http://greenburgh.dailyvoice.com/news/greenburgh-offers-franks-nursery-house-sports-35-million
Bernstein jumped on this latest plot development, labeling it a “Feiner fiasco” on his FB page with the alliteration we've learned to enjoy.
As always at this early stage, election impact of this development impossible to say. I don't hear anyone discussing this issues on the 7:58 AM train. I suppose it is convenient for Feiner to eliminate one of Bernstein’s major talking points early in the campaign season. But as always, I question how many undecided registered Democrats exist who could potentially be swayed by this issue. Bernstein seems intent on hammering on the theme of Feiner's financial mismanagement. At the moment, Frank’s Nursery is probably the issue most well-known to voters, if only because of the referendum this past fall. Will Feiner rue having made Frank's such a public issue?
Regarding the Feiner mismanagement argument, Bernstein’s anonymous supporter “William” assembled a useful list of issues and accusations over at his ABG site: http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/issues.html
Regarding the Feiner mismanagement argument, Bernstein’s anonymous supporter “William” assembled a useful list of issues and accusations over at his ABG site: http://www.abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2013/06/issues.html
3. Who’ll Stop the Rain?: Bernstein raised continual flooding problems as an issue at his candidacy announcement; William at ABG has been harping on this for years. Recent (and current) storms have again made the situation impossible to ignore. This issue could be a wildcard in the campaign if Bernstein can effectively make it his own and attract the attention of Elmsford area voters who are most directly impacted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Westchester County Board of Elections agreed with our teams arguments that over 20% of the signatures collected by the Bernstein camp were invalid. They knocked out 337 signatures out of just over 1500 signatures submitted. Some of the signatures were from voters who live outside of Greenburgh. Others from non Democrats. Candidates need 1,000 signatures of Democrats who live in Greenburgh to get on the ballot.
Before my campaign filed the objections we noticed that Mr. Bernstein signed his own petition twice. Nominating petitions can only be signed once by voters. In addition some signatures on the nominating petitions looked like they were signed by the same person-in the same handwriting.
I do not believe that Bernstein's campaign filed 1,000 valid signatures of registered Greenburgh democrats. There were many irregularities in the petition sheets that were submitted -the court should have reviewed each of the specific objections. We lost the challenge on a technicality. I think that if the court had reviewed each of the specific objections we raised that they would have concluded that Mr.Bernstein filed fewer than 1,000 valid signatures.
If my campaign team had challenged all the Democrats on the petition we might have won the case. But, we did not want to knock off the ballot the candidacies of Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner, Town Board members and Anne Povella, Receiver of Taxes, town officials who currently serve in office. We lost the case on a technicality and will move forward.
The court made the decision. I'm looking forward to the upcoming campaign. I like competition and am pleased voters will be able to contrast my approach to governing against my challengers.
PAUL FEINER