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.

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.

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 19^th 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 18^th.   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. 

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.

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:

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%

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?

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:

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%

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.

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.

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].

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

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. 

4.  Fortress Bible:  Feiner stated directly on FB that he “did not destroy any evidence” in the case.    He also stated (on this blog) that there will be insurance coverage for the damages that the court will order the town to pay the plaintiff.   Bernstein and several others challenged Feiner to prove that there will be insurance coverage. Over on his FB page, Bernstein has posted letters from insurers asserting that there will be no insurance coverage.   As far as the destruction of evidence, the plain language of the judge’s decision clearly contradicts Feiner’s assertion.    Like all the other allegations of Feiner’s mismanagement, it remains to be seen if Fortress Bible will stick as an issue.

Looking into the 2007 primary numbers (so you don’t have to): Rivertowns “heart” Paul

The September 2007 primary district breakdown contains a fascinating set of information for any Greenburgh politics junky.  Feiner trounced Sandra Berger by 2:1 in 2005: a much more comfortable margin than the narrow (?)* victory over Greenawalt two years earlier.  

[*Unfortunately, I can only find a partial district breakdown for 2005, so we’ll have to stick to 2007 for now.]

Which districts showed their love for Paul by giving him his largest percentages in 2007?

Here are the districts that gave him more than 80% of the vote in 2005:

Dist 76: Tarrytown                 95%  (HIGHEST FEINER %: 53 – 3!)

Dist. 4 – Tarrytown                85%

Dist. 79: Irvington:                 83%

Dist. 23 – Hastings                 82%    (HIGHEST FEINER VOTE TOTAL: 139!)

Dist. 59: Hastings                   81%

Dist 55: Tarrytown                 80%

Dist. 19- Hastings                   80%

The surprise?  All seven districts where Feiner won 80% of the Democratic primary vote (out of 83 districts total) were… in the incorporated villages!  A cynic might note that those with the least at stake most fervently supported Feiner.

Where did Feiner do best in Unincorporated Greenburgh in 2007?

Dist. 48 –        79%     [Paul’s highest voting district with 138 votes]

[votes at Westchester Community College]

Dist. 66:          73%

[votes at Marina Regina High School]

Dist. 46 –        72%

[votes at Greenburgh Housing Authority, 9 Maple Street, White Plains] 

Where did Feiner do worst? Here are the districts he outright lost (in an election where he received 2/3 of the total vote) - in district # order:

Dist. 35: Edgemont                 26%

[votes at Seely Place School]

Dist. 11: - Irvington                39%

Dist. 33: Edgemont                 42%

[votes at Greenville Fire Dept.]

Dist. 69: Edgemont                 42%

[votes at Greenville School]

Dist. 34: Edgemont                 44%

[votes at Edgemont H.S.]

Dist. 53: Ardsley                     45%

Dist. 38: Hartsdale                  48%  (only 25 votes total)

[votes at Sacred Heart School]

Dist. 56: Hartsdale                  48%

[votes at Woodlands H.S.]

Overall, in 2005, Feiner received 73% of the incorporated villages vote (Feiner received 1790 out of 2701 total)  and 62% in unincorporated Greenburgh (Feiner received 2345 out of 3806 total).

ALL PERCENTAGES LISTED ABOVE INCLUDE BLANK BALLOTS. DISTRICTS IN INCORPORATED VILLAGES ARE IDENTIFIED BY ITALICS. Feel free to check my math.

Trying to understand the Greenburgh 2005 & 2007 Dem. primary numbers

Paul Feiner is now facing only his third Democratic primary challenge in his 12 campaigns for the office of Greenburgh Town Supervisor.   Feiner narrowly fended off William Greenawalt in a squeaker back in 2005.  The squeaquel, however, was much less squeaky: in 2007 Feiner clobbered Sandra Berger by doubling her vote total.   The district-by-district breakdown for those primaries can be found at the Westchester County Board of Election website at:
http://citizenparticipation.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/BOE_2005_Prim_Canvass_Bk.pdf
(pp. 4-6), and
http://citizenparticipation.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/BOE_2007PrimaryCanvassBook.pdf
(pp. 71-74).

Frustratingly, the Greenburgh voting districts are identified by numbers and not communities.  From village elections results and websites, I can identify the district numbers for the villages, which cover 42 of the 83 Greenburgh voting districts.  I can't matchup the remaining Uninc. Greenburgh voting districts with their respective neighborhoods.  I very much want that kind of breakdown.  If you have that information, please contact me.

Here's something else puzzling.  I was going to assume that these primary canvass books provided by Westchester County are official, final results.   What's strange is that the 2007 primary results list 83 Greenburgh voting districts and the presidential election of 2012 results show 81, but the 2005 primary results carry only 56 districts (with the highest number being district 71).  In this supposedly close primary of 2005,  the results presented show that Feiner had 2983 to Greenawalt's 2786 votes.   The missing districts included almost 2000 votes in the 2007 primary. Where are the final, total results?  

Guest Post: Patty from College Corners responds

I devoted the May 31 posting to a statement I received from Paul Feiner arguing that voters should return him to office based on his accomplishments on behalf of the town during his 11 terms to date.  Today we have a guest post from Patty from the College Corners* neighborhood who argues the opposite point: that it is precisely Feiner's record that should convince voters to send him home and elect Bernstein in his place as Supervisor.  Patty also responds to my questioning Bernstein's strategy of focusing on complex narratives of alleged Feiner mismanagement which could be difficult to communicate to uninformed Greeburgh voters.  It's a strongly written and partisan piece. I'll be happy to post responses from Feiner supporters.  

Bob Bernstein is the best candidate we have had to run against Paul in the 20 years I've lived in Greenburgh.  I believe it is also only the 3rd time he has been challenged. If we can’t vote him in, it’s hopeless. He is smart, professional, considerate and is well versed in town affairs. Although I did not attend his announcement at Frank’s the other day, I can be counted as part of the small core of residents with an understanding of issues of which Bernstein speaks. The issues are somewhat straight forward if people took the time to seek the information out. The problem is that the negative information has been buried and misrepresented by Feiner to the public. Feiner is no dummy. He spends a great deal of time on social media spinning tales, and outright lying about the issues, along with a constant barrage of seemingly do-good efforts people only see or read the “Good Samaritan” as he presents himself as the perfect, obedient and attentive son we all would love to call our own. He has been so effective with this “beard” people seem confused when they hear accusations of how much of a bad boy he really is.  Their eyes glass over as their brains wipe the information away as the new info it appears so contradictory, it can’t be processed. Make no mistake. Behind the appearance of Feiner’s seemingly endless good deeds, he has taken our money and turned it over to the individuals/individual groups/various parts of the Greenburgh community that will keep voting for him. The money comes by way of programs, hires, discounts, freebies……it’s all very subtle. What is not so subtle is the Fortress Bible decision. There it is. In black and white. 


 If there is only one thing any Greenburgh tax-payer can do to understand the issues Bernstein speaks of, it would be to digest this decision. If Feiner and friends are capable of doing what Judge Stephen Robinson found to be true, you need to look no further to know this could not be an isolated occurrence. This just happens to be only one time he’s been caught. Read the decision and then ask yourselves; have I been a duped for 22 years? People have a choice; they can continue to believe the lies, call Paul up to complain about whatever mundane thing bothers them on any given day and just because he answers them (does little to nothing in the long run) they can vote for him all while he is making back room deals, for his own self promotion, costing the tax-payers millions and millions or they can start to be conscious of the egregious wrong doings of Paul Feiner and put an end to it.                        
- Patty, Registered Democrat Hartsdale, College Corners.


(*OK, OK, I've been waffling on commenter identification rule: after internally debating this ad naseum, I'm requiring that commenters use a real first name and neighborhood on the post that will appear on this blog.  I will only approve a comment, however, after I verify through email the commenter's full name and neighborhood.  I will give extra attention to commenters who identify themselves as registered as Democrats in the Town of Greenburgh and eligible to vote in the primary).  

Manorwoodsblog exclusive: Paul Feiner responds to criticism on the WestHELP and Fortress Bible Issues

1. Paul Feiner posted the following comments on June 1st in response to my posting of 5/29 describing Bernstein's press conference statements.  This is most direct written statement I recall from Feiner addressing these issues, so once again, I believe this is "above the fold material" warranting main page posting:

   
   

   Some corrections: Insurance will cover some of the Fortress Bible damages. The town does not anticipate that the award will approach 7 million dollars. There is a damages trial and we feel we have some excellent argument that will result in significantly less damages.
   Obviously, I'm disappointed with the fact that the federal court disagreed with the town re: Fortress Bible case. The town rejected the application because the police chief/traffic consultant felt that the site for this church was not a safe location. We were attempting to be responsive to the community and to safety issues.
   The secession movement has support from Bernstein,leaders of the Edgemont Community Council but very little support from the Edgemont community --it's been talked about for decades but the last time there was a vote in the Edgemont community secession went down--big time. IT probably would be defeated again --it would result in tax hikes for Edgemont residents and service cuts for Edgemont and the rest of the town. PAUL FEINER
2. Some clarifications: The damage portion of the Fortress Bible case has not been settled. We do not believe that the town will be asked to pay anywhere close to 7 million in damages. We expect that a portion of the damages will be paid by our insurance carrier. RE: WESTHELP--the comments by Bernstein that I refused to renegotiate the contract are false. An article in the Scarsdale Inquirer a few months ago quoted Susan Tolchin, former Deputy County Executive (and a former opponent of mine) as stating that Andy Spano was considering closing down WESTHELP. Finally, we based our decision re: rejecting Fortress Bible on traffic safety considerations pointed out by our traffic consultants. I am disappointed that the Judge disagreed with the town but we still believe that the location is unsafe (obviously, we have to comply with the law since a decision has been issued, even if we disagree with it). I did not destroy any evidence. The town forwarded thousands of documents to the court--from computer searches.
   PAUL FEINER