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.
The issue is not Edgemont secession. Its Edgemont incorporation into the Town's 7th village. Feiner as usual wants it both ways - he panders to the villages but says "poor" Edgemont cannot incorporate because it would be bad for the rest of the unincorporated areas which they subsidize. Either way, Edgemont incorporation has been debated for nearly a century. There was one vote in 1967 in which incorporaton was defeated 3 to 1. Now 1967 is along time ago, but nothing has really changed - most if not 95% of the people in Edgemont are there for the schools. They have little interest in operating a government. Further, State policy is 100% aligned against village incorporation - to the contrary the State wants consolidation of municipalities. Moreover, Edgemont as part of unincorporated Greenburgh is still on the hook for legacy debt costs for the library bonds and all other borrowings of the Town outside the villages. Finally, the meetings of the pro-incorporation crowd are sparsely attended. Once Feiner(or perhaps Bernstein) leaves the scene, the issue will go back to what it has always been - a nice idea on paper but about 80 years too late. The last village in Greenburgh was incorporated over 100 years ago - Elmsford in 1910. The last village in Westchester was Rye Brook - 1982 - 31 years ago.
ReplyDelete9/13/13 Letter to the Editor, Published Scarsdale Inquirer
ReplyDeleteWhen does Edgemont matter?
You really have to wonder how significant you are to the town when 80-85% of your community (Edgemont) overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Bernstein yet the rest of the Town supported Mr. Feiner two votes for every one of Mr. Bernstein’s (which includes the Edgemont figures above). Although some people may believe in miracles, many of us never expected Mr. Bernstein to win this election but he does have our support and respect. While he may be the better “man” for the job, no opponent could ever win in such a controlled environment; which brings me to the true point of this letter.
I had hoped that Bob’s campaign would actually make a difference elsewhere in the town. I had hoped that more people would begin to think twice and perhaps wonder why there appear to be bigger problems in Town hall than they had originally suspected. I had hope that people would look beyond the nice guy who shovels their walkway and begin to question his qualifications towards handling the much bigger issues. How much smoke does one need to see before suspecting that there may actually be a fire within the walls of 177 Hillside Ave?
While I would welcome being wrong on this subject (a rarity for me) the 2 to 1 vote margin above suggests otherwise.
During the campaign Mr. Feiner repeatedly touted that if Edgemont were to Incorporate it would have a serious impact on services for “the rest of Greenburgh”. So while we may be insignificant in an election, Edgemont is apparently quite significant to the town for other reasons. Elections aside, you would think that Mr. Feiner might heed his own acknowledgement of fact and actually attempt to do something productive about it. Instead of spreading fear across the town (and using this fear to secure votes) he should be focusing his attention on trying to mend relations with the residents of Edgemont, if not for our insignificant vote, perhaps for the possible loss of services to “the rest of Greenburgh”. Unfortunately Bob may not have had an effect on the rest of Greenburgh, but I know this campaign has opened the eyes of many within Edgemont. I applaud and express my thanks towards Mr. Bernstein for trying to solve the town’s problems “from within”.
As Manor Woods Blog makes it abundantly clear, Edgemont cannot dislodge Feiner by itself. Edgemont has been poorly lead by the current ECC leadership. The ECC has been far too confrontational and insular. Parts of Hartsdale such as Manor Woods and Hartsdale Estates and Edgemont are two high taxed areas in the unincorporated part of the Town of Greenburgh which the Feiner regime uses to subsidize the rest of the town's programs and otherwise fund his ongoing fiscal and legal recklessness. Hartsdale (at least the Central “7” Portion), having a poorly regarded school district, has lost its political identity and as Manor Woods Blog notes, was never mentioned once in the debate. Absent its excellent school district, Edgemont is no different from Hartsdale - a source of lots of taxes with no political representation
ReplyDeleteThe only "Hartsdale" resident on the town board is the feckless Francis Sheehan who is, as many have called, him a hemorrhoid up Feiner's tuchas.
A close look at the election numbers show that at best approximately 35% of the registered democrats in Edgemont voted for Mr. Bernstein. Feiner probably got 4%.
So over 60 % of registered democrats in Edgemont itself did not vote. The number of non-voters in Edgemont is even higher if you include republicans and independents who cannot vote in the primary.
So the Bernstein vote in Edgemont was more akin to a protest vote than any mandate for Mr. Bernstein (who, in addition to running a rudderless campaign, was clueless as to how skilled and ruthless Feiner could be when someone dared to throw him off his throne). It takes quite a while to learn how to do retail politics - Feiner has been doing it for 30 years and while he has no other skills or talent – this is one ability he possesses. As for the campaign issues chosen by Bernstein – most were too complicated for the average voter who prides themselves on not knowing what is going on in Town government. Further, and perhaps sadly, most voters in Greenburgh understood the reasons (illegitimate or illegal as they were) why Feiner did not renew the lease at WestHELP, opposed the Fortress Bible church or gave money to the Valhalla School District. Obama notwithstanding, we are not a post racial America.
With Edgemont incorporation a non-starter (the support or energy for such an effort simply does not exist), the answer for frustrated Edgemonters like Mr. Hirsh is pretty simple- make political alliances with the activists in the Hartsdale communities mentioned above. Work to find candidates from Hartsdale to run for seats on the town council - in other words create a form of district representation for the high paying taxpayers in unincorporated greenburgh and the villages who are disgusted by the shenanigans (and sheehanigans) of Paul Feiner and Francis Sheehan as well as the jokes on the board like Ken Jones and Diana Juettner (the “Sphinxter”) who has also sat on the Town Board as long as Feiner and has been his chief enabler.
Now as Hal Samis has observed, just three votes on the town board neutralizes Feiner. Right now Edgemont and Hartsdale have no one at the table. Two seats may beget three. Two seats acting as the proverbial “cop on the beat” may be able to extract concessions from the remaining feinerites on close issues or at least bring some of their malevolent actions from darkness to light. You cannot rely on a Feiner creation like the well-meaning Sonya Brown who once she clashed with Feiner was shown the door.
In any event, the current approach to town government by the ECC has failed.
Hartsdale is too diffuse to kick start its own resurgence. It needs to be coaxed from the dead by others including the ECC. Hartsdale is the sleeping giant. The question is will the folks in Edgemont and elsewhere who want change in town government open their eyes to this political reality or will they double down on their current go it alone strategy?
Gary: I'm going to play the devil's advocate and argue that Bernstein did make a strong, clear and easy to understand case with his "price of paul" theme. Where he failed, however, was to make the second half of the argument which consists of taking Feiner's alleged costs to the Greenburgh and showing their impact on the individual taxpayer. But this is where the anti-Feiner position begins to unravel. As Paul has effectively countered, the town portion of the unincorporated householder tax bill is less than 20% - and in the village probably no more than 2%. After Bernstein adds up all his millions of Feiner's suposed unforced errors, how much is the average taxpayer out of pocket: $50 per year? I'm just guessing of course, but as someone who initially was impressed by Bernstein's "price of Paul" arguments, I'm starting to think that most taxpayers might think that $25 per year is not much of price to pay for deluxe 24 hour constituent service. Another fatal weakness, which Reisman does correctly (although inadvertently) point out is that the current "loyal opposition" (ABG's "G10") cannot escape the impression that they are more motivated by animus to Feiner than by actually desire to help Greenburgh homeowners. Again, this may be an entirely wrong assessment, but I think the Berger/Bernstein debacles indicate it's time to clean out the Greenburgh Democratic party stables and start with new voices and faces. Maybe there's an ambitious 20 something out there who, just like Paul Feiner, 30 years ago, is looking to enter politics and make a difference: that's the person the GDC (and Feiner) should be encouraging and searching for.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Feiner countered well with both his "Feiner benefits" arguments (grants, concierge services, "no cost to the town" mantra, one-armed garbage trucks, 2% cap compliance. AAA bond rating etc) as well the Bernstein costs such as hiring a town manager. Bernstein did not focus on term limits or even raise the issue of district representation. Years ago young people like Feiner were motivated to enter politics by John Kennedy or Dick Ottinger or Robert Kennedy. There is no one on the horizon like that today. As Edelman said in Lohud yesterday - without term limits in a one party town like Greenburgh, voters vote for who they know and they know Feiner. In a town as large as Greenburgh you have to campaign for at least a year or perhaps longer to become known. It might also help if your campaign advisors were from this area and not Washington DC.
ReplyDeleteBernstein's campaign consultant, Gil Kaminer, certainly knows Greenburgh -although he doesn't live here. On the other hand, Feiner's team always seems to be right from Greenburgh, or family from Scarsdale. (BTW at about $2000 to $2500 per month, being a Greenburgh campaign consultant seems like a pretty sweet summertime gig).
ReplyDeleteFeiner campaigns 25/8/366 (kudos to Hal Samis). Even his Feinermobile is paid for by his campaign. He emails to the e-list 3 times a day. He governs by press release and when its a slow day he forwards the press releases of others. Bernstein used The Pivot Group which is based in Washington DC. Pivot is a voter communications firm specializing in providing direct mail, advanced targeting and strategic guidance to Democratic campaigns and organizations. Suffice to say, Bernstein's direct mailings where awful (instead of Paul Feiner says he is the problem solver when in fact he is the problem we got lots of reminders that Bob is an attorney which only reinforced the view many had that Bernstein was too litigious) while Feiner's where much more effective because they were positive at first and when they went negative, they hit hard even if they probably crossed the line into actionable defamation). As for Kaminer, I believe he ran Suzanne Berger's disasterous campaign back in 2007. Whether Kaminer knows Greenburgh or not, he doesnt know how to run a campaign that would pose a credible threat to the Feiner machine.
ReplyDelete