Sunday, March 27, 2016
Reassessment-gate: A Modest Proposal
As outrage spreads rapidly among homeowners with decreased reassessments over the Town Board's plan to phase-in reassessment over 5 years, one Hartsdale resident came up with the following solution that is Swiftian in its brilliance and simplicity: if Edgemont, Irvington and Hastings homeowners want Hartsdale and Fairview to continue subsidizing their taxes, then they should open their schools to our kids! Can't beat that for proposal!
Friday, March 25, 2016
Urge Town Board Members to Oppose the Proposed Five Year Phase-In of the Reassessment (Rule 1904)
Greenburgh homeowners recently received their property reassessment notice in the mail with the calculation of an estimated property tax change. For those of you who received notices of reductions, be aware that the well-earned savings you anticipate for next year are about to be taken away!
Supervisor Feiner now informs us that the Town Board plans to cave into pressure from Greenburgh's most expensive neighborhoods to phase-in the reassessment over 5 years ("Rule 1904") instead of implementing it immediately as has been done in every other New York town that has reassessed (See: Town notice of 5 Year Phase of Reassessment ). This phase-in means that homeowners who have been overpaying for years (even decades) will continue to over-pay their fair share for five more years and, conversely, the under assessed will continue to pay less than their share for the same time period. In simple words, the previously overassessed have been subsidizing the underassessed for years and, at the Board's behest, will continue to do so for 5 more years.
There is a troubling social justice aspect to adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in that many residents will find uncomfortable to discuss. It appears that the over-assseed homes may lie disproportionately in Greenburgh neighborhoods with mixed income families with higher percentages of minority home owners. These are the neighborhoods that have been hit hardest and recovered the least after the market crash in 2008. There, housing values have declined the most. In contrast, the lobbying effort urging adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in on behalf of long-time under assessed homeowners appears to come from Greenburgh's most expensive and sought-after communities. For example, the Edgemont Community Council has taken the lead in pushing for adoption of Rule 1904. By moving to perpetuate the inequity in property assessments for another 5 years, the Town Board appears to favor a reverse Robin Hood approach to this economic issue: in Greenburgh, the lower value neighborhood homes subsidize the most expensive. (For those interested in the deleterious legacy of unfair housing practices and government policies on minority communities, I suggest that you read many articles on the subject by The Atlantic magazine's Ta-Nehisi Coates.)
I urge you to contact the Town Board members immediately to insist that Greenburgh reject Rule 1904 and instead implement reassessment immediately. Fairness and justice should prevail in Greenburgh.
Supervisor Feiner now informs us that the Town Board plans to cave into pressure from Greenburgh's most expensive neighborhoods to phase-in the reassessment over 5 years ("Rule 1904") instead of implementing it immediately as has been done in every other New York town that has reassessed (See: Town notice of 5 Year Phase of Reassessment ). This phase-in means that homeowners who have been overpaying for years (even decades) will continue to over-pay their fair share for five more years and, conversely, the under assessed will continue to pay less than their share for the same time period. In simple words, the previously overassessed have been subsidizing the underassessed for years and, at the Board's behest, will continue to do so for 5 more years.
There is a troubling social justice aspect to adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in that many residents will find uncomfortable to discuss. It appears that the over-assseed homes may lie disproportionately in Greenburgh neighborhoods with mixed income families with higher percentages of minority home owners. These are the neighborhoods that have been hit hardest and recovered the least after the market crash in 2008. There, housing values have declined the most. In contrast, the lobbying effort urging adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in on behalf of long-time under assessed homeowners appears to come from Greenburgh's most expensive and sought-after communities. For example, the Edgemont Community Council has taken the lead in pushing for adoption of Rule 1904. By moving to perpetuate the inequity in property assessments for another 5 years, the Town Board appears to favor a reverse Robin Hood approach to this economic issue: in Greenburgh, the lower value neighborhood homes subsidize the most expensive. (For those interested in the deleterious legacy of unfair housing practices and government policies on minority communities, I suggest that you read many articles on the subject by The Atlantic magazine's Ta-Nehisi Coates.)
I urge you to contact the Town Board members immediately to insist that Greenburgh reject Rule 1904 and instead implement reassessment immediately. Fairness and justice should prevail in Greenburgh.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Impact of Reassessment on "Upper Manor Woods" [UPDATED 3/31]
What was the impact of the town-wide reassessment on our neighborhood?
This post will examine "Upper Manor Woods" (UMW) which I'm defining as the 163 single family homes on Mercer Ave, Caterson Terrace, Charlotte Place, Findlay Ave, Holland, upper Lakeview, and upper Jane]
Overall, UMW saw a decrease in total assessed value of 1.9%.
Of the 163 UMW houses I surveyed, 76 houses had assessment increases; and 87 had decreases in assessed value.
I. First, the changes in percentages:
A. Significant Increases (more than 5%): 28%
The largest single house increase was 35%.
20-26%: 8 houses
15-19%: 8 houses
10-14%: 13 houses
5- 9%: 15 houses
That's 45 houses (28%) with significant increases (significant defined here as 5% or higher).
B. No significant change ( -5% to 5%): 34%
0- 5%: 30 houses
-5- 0%: 25 houses
That's 55, or 34% of our sample. Of course, when the mean total property tax is already about $19,000, a change of only 5% approaches $1,000 in either direction. Yet designating this -5 to +5 ranges as not significant is the only way to make sense of the 1/3 up, 1/3/ the same, 1/3 down reassessment scheme explained by the Town Board.
C. Significant Decreases (exceeding -5%)
-5- -10%: 10 houses
-10 - 15%: 21
-15- -20%: 11
-20 - -25%: 9
-25 - -30%: 2
-30 - 35%: 5
-35 - 42%: 5
63 houses had significant decreases: 39%
The largest single decrease was 42%.
II. In terms of assessment dollar value:
one house had an increase in excess of $200,000.
$100,000 - 200,000: 17 houses
$50,000 - 100,000: 16 houses
$25, 000 - 50,000: 13 houses
0 - $25,000: 28 houses
Decreases
-$25,000 - 0: 18 houses
-$25,000 --50,000: 13 houses
-$50,000 - -100,000: 31 houses
-$100,000 - -200,000: 21 houses
-$200,000 : 2 houses had declines in excess of $200K in assessed value.
We report, you decide.
This post will examine "Upper Manor Woods" (UMW) which I'm defining as the 163 single family homes on Mercer Ave, Caterson Terrace, Charlotte Place, Findlay Ave, Holland, upper Lakeview, and upper Jane]
Overall, UMW saw a decrease in total assessed value of 1.9%.
Of the 163 UMW houses I surveyed, 76 houses had assessment increases; and 87 had decreases in assessed value.
I. First, the changes in percentages:
A. Significant Increases (more than 5%): 28%
The largest single house increase was 35%.
20-26%: 8 houses
15-19%: 8 houses
10-14%: 13 houses
5- 9%: 15 houses
That's 45 houses (28%) with significant increases (significant defined here as 5% or higher).
B. No significant change ( -5% to 5%): 34%
0- 5%: 30 houses
-5- 0%: 25 houses
That's 55, or 34% of our sample. Of course, when the mean total property tax is already about $19,000, a change of only 5% approaches $1,000 in either direction. Yet designating this -5 to +5 ranges as not significant is the only way to make sense of the 1/3 up, 1/3/ the same, 1/3 down reassessment scheme explained by the Town Board.
C. Significant Decreases (exceeding -5%)
-5- -10%: 10 houses
-10 - 15%: 21
-15- -20%: 11
-20 - -25%: 9
-25 - -30%: 2
-30 - 35%: 5
-35 - 42%: 5
63 houses had significant decreases: 39%
The largest single decrease was 42%.
II. In terms of assessment dollar value:
one house had an increase in excess of $200,000.
$100,000 - 200,000: 17 houses
$50,000 - 100,000: 16 houses
$25, 000 - 50,000: 13 houses
0 - $25,000: 28 houses
Decreases
-$25,000 - 0: 18 houses
-$25,000 --50,000: 13 houses
-$50,000 - -100,000: 31 houses
-$100,000 - -200,000: 21 houses
-$200,000 : 2 houses had declines in excess of $200K in assessed value.
We report, you decide.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Bramson - Astorino: Greeburgh Numbers Breakdown
VILLAGE
|
VOTING DIST.
|
TOTAL
|
BRAMSON
|
%
|
ASTORINO
|
%
|
ASTORINO % in 2009
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TARRYTOWN
|
1-7, 55, 74, 76
|
2283
|
1128
|
49.4%
|
1155
|
50.6%
|
__%
| |
IRVINGTON
|
8-11, 60, 79
|
1592
|
847
|
53.2%
|
745
|
46.8%
|
__
| |
DOBBS FERRY
|
12-17, 58, 65. 80
|
2040
|
1080
|
52.9%
|
960
|
47.1%
|
__
| |
HASTINGS
|
18-23, 52, 59
|
2179
|
1483
|
68.1%
|
696
|
31.9%
|
__%
| |
ARDSLEY
|
24, 25, 53, 54
|
1029
|
515
|
50%
|
514
|
50%
|
__%
| |
ELMSFORD
|
26-28
|
577
|
264
|
45.8%
|
313
|
54.2%
|
__%
| |
2013 TOTALS
|
9700
|
5317
|
54.8%
|
4383
|
45.2%
|
__%
| ||
|
|---|
Sunday, January 12, 2014
What does the Fortress Bible settlement mean for Hartsdale?
This past December 17th, the Greenburgh Town Board approved a $6.5 million payout to settle years of litigation with the Fortress Bible Church.
Stymied by Greenburgh government officials in its attempt to build a church and school on land purchased by the church in Greenburgh, the church had filed suit in federal district court claiming that Greenburgh had violated the church's constitutional rights. The church prevailed in a decision that was scathing in its appraisal of the conduct of Greenburgh town officials. The trial court's decision was completely affirmed on appeal.
For the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal's decision, see
http://rluipa-defense.com/docs/Fortress%20Bible%202d%20Cir.pdf
According to the town board and reports, only $1 million of this settlement is covered by the town's insurance. The remaining balance will have to be funded by the property taxpayers of Greenburgh directly. This past Thursday night, the Greenburgh town board approved financing $5.5 million of the settlement payout by issuing a bond that will be repaid over ten years.
http://abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2014/01/super-majority-passes-amended-amended.html
Repaying the $5.5 million ten year bond's principle and interest will be borne solely by unincorporated Greenburgh property owners (i.e., "TOV" or "town outside villages), which is essentially Fairview, Hartsdale and Edgemont. According to Bob Bernstein's Greenburgh Update on Facebook, the cost of the settlement to unincorporated homeowners will be about $17 per 1,000 of each home's assessed value. I calculated the average assessed value of the 19 homes on my block of Mercer Ave. between Finlay and Lakeview and, according to Bernstein's calculation, these 19 homeowners will pay at least $349 per home to fund the Fortress Bible settlement, presumably paid out over ten years.
Even though village voters (i.e., residents of Tarrytown, Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings, Elmsford and Ardsley) typically deliver close to 40% of the Democratic party primary votes received by board members, villagers will not pay the price of their elected officials' actions on the Fortress Bible matter. To my understanding, this means that while, for example, Mercer Ave. residents will pay $349 per home to fund the settlement, the one town board member who lives in the villages (Diana Juettner) and who voted (1) in favor of the settlement and (2) that the costs will be borne only by unincorporated property taxpayers, will pay $0 toward the settlement.
I wrote to Greenburgh Councilman Francis Sheehan - who is the sole board member who lives in Hartsdale and will bear personally bear the costs of the settlement - to ask for his explanation of his vote in favor of the settlement and allocating all the costs solely to unincorporated Greenburgh residents. He gave me permission to post his response:
Dear Mr. Weinfeld:
You may have noticed that the Town Board amended the bond resolution immediately prior to its adoption last night (1/9/14). The resolution that was before the Town Board was ambiguous as to who would pay the principal and interest. However, the Town Attorney (who also lives in the unincorporated area) stated at the Wednesday night Town Board meeting that, notwithstanding what the resolution may state, only the Town Outside Villages (TOV) fund would be used to pay the settlement. In the interest of transparency, the Town Board amended the resolution prior to adoption to remove the ambiguity so the public and the purchasers of the bonds would be more fully and accurately informed.
As both candidates for supervisor, Paul Feiner and Bob Bernstein, agreed during last year's campaign, the Fortress Bible lawsuit is related to land-use/zoning decisions that solely affect property in the unincorporated area (Town Outside Villages) and they further agreed that any settlement related to that land-use issue should therefore be solely charged to the Town Outside Villages (TOV) fund. The candidates did not agree on much during that campaign but they agreed on that determination, as do I and the other members of the Town Board. The bond resolution adopted last evening is consistent with that reasoning and that determination.
Ten days in, it may be a bit late but I wish you a healthy and happy New Year,
Francis Sheehan, Councilman
Town of Greenburgh
In fairness to Mr. Sheehan (and Mr. Morgan and Mr. Jones), he was not a board member at the time the prejudicial decisions were made that prompted the successful litigation from Fortress Bible Church accusing the town of violating its constitutional rights. Only Paul Feiner and Diana Juettner remain on the board from that fateful time in the early 2000s.
[correction: Gary writes in that Councilman Morgan lives in unincorporated Greenburgh (North Elmsford) and consequently his property will be subject to increased taxes to pay off the bond. Diana Juettner is the only board member will get away without paying].
See:
http://westchester.lohudblogs.com/2013/12/17/greenburgh-approves-6-5-million-settlement-mount-vernon-congregation
http://westchester.news12.com/news/greenburgh-agrees-to-6-5m-settlement-with-mount-vernon-based-church-1.6633089
http://westfaironline.com/59778/greenburgh-agrees-to-6-5m-settlement-with-church
Stymied by Greenburgh government officials in its attempt to build a church and school on land purchased by the church in Greenburgh, the church had filed suit in federal district court claiming that Greenburgh had violated the church's constitutional rights. The church prevailed in a decision that was scathing in its appraisal of the conduct of Greenburgh town officials. The trial court's decision was completely affirmed on appeal.
For the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal's decision, see
http://rluipa-defense.com/docs/Fortress%20Bible%202d%20Cir.pdf
According to the town board and reports, only $1 million of this settlement is covered by the town's insurance. The remaining balance will have to be funded by the property taxpayers of Greenburgh directly. This past Thursday night, the Greenburgh town board approved financing $5.5 million of the settlement payout by issuing a bond that will be repaid over ten years.
http://abettergreenburgh.blogspot.com/2014/01/super-majority-passes-amended-amended.html
Repaying the $5.5 million ten year bond's principle and interest will be borne solely by unincorporated Greenburgh property owners (i.e., "TOV" or "town outside villages), which is essentially Fairview, Hartsdale and Edgemont. According to Bob Bernstein's Greenburgh Update on Facebook, the cost of the settlement to unincorporated homeowners will be about $17 per 1,000 of each home's assessed value. I calculated the average assessed value of the 19 homes on my block of Mercer Ave. between Finlay and Lakeview and, according to Bernstein's calculation, these 19 homeowners will pay at least $349 per home to fund the Fortress Bible settlement, presumably paid out over ten years.
Even though village voters (i.e., residents of Tarrytown, Irvington, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings, Elmsford and Ardsley) typically deliver close to 40% of the Democratic party primary votes received by board members, villagers will not pay the price of their elected officials' actions on the Fortress Bible matter. To my understanding, this means that while, for example, Mercer Ave. residents will pay $349 per home to fund the settlement, the one town board member who lives in the villages (Diana Juettner) and who voted (1) in favor of the settlement and (2) that the costs will be borne only by unincorporated property taxpayers, will pay $0 toward the settlement.
I wrote to Greenburgh Councilman Francis Sheehan - who is the sole board member who lives in Hartsdale and will bear personally bear the costs of the settlement - to ask for his explanation of his vote in favor of the settlement and allocating all the costs solely to unincorporated Greenburgh residents. He gave me permission to post his response:
Dear Mr. Weinfeld:
You may have noticed that the Town Board amended the bond resolution immediately prior to its adoption last night (1/9/14). The resolution that was before the Town Board was ambiguous as to who would pay the principal and interest. However, the Town Attorney (who also lives in the unincorporated area) stated at the Wednesday night Town Board meeting that, notwithstanding what the resolution may state, only the Town Outside Villages (TOV) fund would be used to pay the settlement. In the interest of transparency, the Town Board amended the resolution prior to adoption to remove the ambiguity so the public and the purchasers of the bonds would be more fully and accurately informed.
As both candidates for supervisor, Paul Feiner and Bob Bernstein, agreed during last year's campaign, the Fortress Bible lawsuit is related to land-use/zoning decisions that solely affect property in the unincorporated area (Town Outside Villages) and they further agreed that any settlement related to that land-use issue should therefore be solely charged to the Town Outside Villages (TOV) fund. The candidates did not agree on much during that campaign but they agreed on that determination, as do I and the other members of the Town Board. The bond resolution adopted last evening is consistent with that reasoning and that determination.
Ten days in, it may be a bit late but I wish you a healthy and happy New Year,
Francis Sheehan, Councilman
Town of Greenburgh
In fairness to Mr. Sheehan (and Mr. Morgan and Mr. Jones), he was not a board member at the time the prejudicial decisions were made that prompted the successful litigation from Fortress Bible Church accusing the town of violating its constitutional rights. Only Paul Feiner and Diana Juettner remain on the board from that fateful time in the early 2000s.
[correction: Gary writes in that Councilman Morgan lives in unincorporated Greenburgh (North Elmsford) and consequently his property will be subject to increased taxes to pay off the bond. Diana Juettner is the only board member will get away without paying].
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Looking at the 2013 Primary Number: Part II
Which election districts love Paul Feiner the most? Which ones are happy to leave him? Here are Feiner's top 10:
1. ED67 - 92% Election District 67 lies in the extreme north-east of the town and falls within the Valhalla school district. #67 gave Paul Feiner 81 out of 88 total votes. It is the only unincorporated election district on Feiner's top 10 list (and the only one outside of the river towns).
2. ED9 - 91% Irvington
3. ED4 - 89% Tarrytown
4. ED18 -89% Hastings
5. ED55 -89% Tarrytown
6. ED19 -89% Hastings
7. ED16 -88% Dobbs Ferry
8. (tie) ED14 - 87% Dobbs Ferry
ED60 - 87% Irvington
10. ED23 -87% Hastings (Feiner's highest vote total ED with 142 to 21; also his highest vote total in 2007).
Who doesn't like Paul so much? Bernstein won exactly 10 election districts out of 81 in Greenburgh. Not surprisingly most of these are in Edgemont. Those ten are as follows, in reverse order and listed according to Feiner's percentage:
10.ED75 - 43% - mostly Hartsdale (condos on east side of Central Ave. south from E. Hartsdale Road)
9. ED72 - 42% - Hartsdale (lower manor woods centered on Columbia Ave.)
8. ED29 - 40% - Pocantico SD (smallest of all EDs with only 10 votes total: Paul got 4).
7. ED49 - 37% - Edgemont ( west of Central Ave, south of Ardsley Road intersection)
6. ED51 - 37% - Elmsford SD (neighborhood between Worthington Rd. & Saw Mill, north of Dobbs Ferry Rd)
5. ED70 - 33% - Pretty much all Edgemont (west side of Central Ave. from W. Hartsdale Ave. south to the Underhill Rd intersection)
4. ED69 - 28% - Edgemont (just to the west of #33 and essentially west of Fort Hill Rd. between Underhill and Ardsley Road)
3. ED33 - 18% - Edgemont (along west side of Cental Ave., south of Underhill Road. down to Ardlsey Road)
2. ED34 - 14% - Edgemont (east of Central Ave. & Old Army Rd. and streching along the length of Aqueduct Road corridor Bernstein's home ED and his highest vote ED with 160 to 26).
.. and the district that most dislikes our 22 year incumbent…
1. ED35 - 11% - deep in the heart of Edgemont (mostly east of Central Ave and west of Old Army Rd.), Bernstein received 156 votes and Feiner only 20. Also the worst ED for Feiner against Berger in 2007.
1. ED67 - 92% Election District 67 lies in the extreme north-east of the town and falls within the Valhalla school district. #67 gave Paul Feiner 81 out of 88 total votes. It is the only unincorporated election district on Feiner's top 10 list (and the only one outside of the river towns).
2. ED9 - 91% Irvington
3. ED4 - 89% Tarrytown
4. ED18 -89% Hastings
5. ED55 -89% Tarrytown
6. ED19 -89% Hastings
7. ED16 -88% Dobbs Ferry
8. (tie) ED14 - 87% Dobbs Ferry
ED60 - 87% Irvington
10. ED23 -87% Hastings (Feiner's highest vote total ED with 142 to 21; also his highest vote total in 2007).
Who doesn't like Paul so much? Bernstein won exactly 10 election districts out of 81 in Greenburgh. Not surprisingly most of these are in Edgemont. Those ten are as follows, in reverse order and listed according to Feiner's percentage:
10.ED75 - 43% - mostly Hartsdale (condos on east side of Central Ave. south from E. Hartsdale Road)
9. ED72 - 42% - Hartsdale (lower manor woods centered on Columbia Ave.)
8. ED29 - 40% - Pocantico SD (smallest of all EDs with only 10 votes total: Paul got 4).
7. ED49 - 37% - Edgemont ( west of Central Ave, south of Ardsley Road intersection)
6. ED51 - 37% - Elmsford SD (neighborhood between Worthington Rd. & Saw Mill, north of Dobbs Ferry Rd)
5. ED70 - 33% - Pretty much all Edgemont (west side of Central Ave. from W. Hartsdale Ave. south to the Underhill Rd intersection)
4. ED69 - 28% - Edgemont (just to the west of #33 and essentially west of Fort Hill Rd. between Underhill and Ardsley Road)
3. ED33 - 18% - Edgemont (along west side of Cental Ave., south of Underhill Road. down to Ardlsey Road)
2. ED34 - 14% - Edgemont (east of Central Ave. & Old Army Rd. and streching along the length of Aqueduct Road corridor Bernstein's home ED and his highest vote ED with 160 to 26).
.. and the district that most dislikes our 22 year incumbent…
1. ED35 - 11% - deep in the heart of Edgemont (mostly east of Central Ave and west of Old Army Rd.), Bernstein received 156 votes and Feiner only 20. Also the worst ED for Feiner against Berger in 2007.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Looking at the numbers: the 2013 Primary Breakdown
VILLAGE
|
VOTING DIST.
|
TOTAL
|
BERNST
|
%
|
FEINER
|
%
|
FEINER % in 2007
|
FEINER % in 2005
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TARRYTOWN
|
1-7, 55, 74, 76
|
404
|
79
|
20%
|
321
|
79%
|
78%
|
57%
|
IRVINGTON
|
8-11, 60, 79
|
302
|
45
|
15%
|
256
|
85%
|
68%
|
41%
|
DOBBS FERRY
|
12-17, 58, 65. 80
|
380
|
106
|
28%
|
272
|
72%
|
70%
|
54%
|
HASTINGS
|
18-23, 52, 59
|
664
|
102
|
15%
|
558
|
84%
|
78%
|
52%
|
ARDSLEY
|
24, 25, 53, 54
|
293
|
102
|
35%
|
188
|
64%
|
56%
|
31%
|
ELMSFORD
|
26-28
|
122
|
40
|
33%
|
80
|
67%
|
61%
|
68%
|
2013 TOTALS
|
2165
|
474
|
22%
|
1675
|
77%
|
71%
|
49%
| |
UG SCHOOL DIST
|
VOTING DIST.
|
TOTAL
|
BERNST.
|
%
|
FEINER
|
%
|
FEINER % in 2007
|
FEINER % in 2005
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDGEMONT SD
|
33-35, 49, 69, 70
|
868
|
678
|
78%
|
187
|
22%
|
43%
|
34%
|
HARTSDALE GC
|
36-41, 56, 57, 66, 71, 72, 75
|
867
|
296
|
34%
|
561
|
65%
|
60%
|
51%
|
FAIRVIEW GC
|
42, 44-46, 61, 63, 64, 78
|
932
|
329
|
35%
|
593
|
64%
|
63%
|
58%
|
POCANTICO SD
|
29, 68
|
75
|
36
|
48%
|
36
|
48%
|
61%
|
58%
|
VALHALLA SD
|
47, 48, 67
|
283
|
62
|
22%
|
215
|
76%
|
71%
|
64%
|
ARDSLEY SD (outside village)
|
32, 43, 50, 62
|
389
|
113
|
29%
|
274
|
70%
|
68%
|
55%
|
ELMSFORD SD (outside village)
|
51, 77, 81
|
226
|
79
|
35%
|
143
|
63%
|
59%
|
55%
|
TARRY/ELM MIX
|
30
|
65
|
26
|
40%
|
39
|
60%
|
59%
|
73%
|
IRV/ELM MIX
|
31
|
62
|
12
|
19%
|
50
|
81%
|
66%
|
60%
|
ARD/HASTING
|
73
|
101
|
27
|
27%
|
74
|
73%
|
64%
| |
2013 UNINC. TOTAL
|
3878
|
1668
|
43%
|
2172
|
56%
|
60%
|
52%
| |
2013 (BERNSTEIN V. FEINER)
|
6043
|
2142
|
35%
|
3847
|
64%
| |||
2007 (BERGER V. FEINER)
|
6683
|
2192
|
33%
|
4315
|
65%
|
2005 (GREENAWALT 5872 2786 47% 2983 51% V. FEINER) Random Observations: Notice how Feiner increased his percentage of the vote in each sizeable community over 2007 (with the glaring exception of Edgemont). Concomitantly, Berger outperformed Bernstein everywhere except Edgemont and the small Pocantico Hills school district precincts. Also note Feiner's dramatic increase in popularity in Irvington and Ardsley villages since 2005. Feiner performed poorly in the villages in 2005 agasinst Bill Greenawalt, but now they are now the bedrock of his support, handing him staggering numbers. The incumbant's increasing strength in Hartsdale (defined here as the Greenburgh Central School district 10530 zip code neighborhoods) is also significant in light of the fact real estate values in Hartsdale have lagged far behind the villages and Edgemont, giving Hartsdale residents particular justification to gripe about taxes and punish officeholders. Feiner paid no attention to Hartsdale-specific issues during the summer campaign, but at the same time Bernstein clearly failed to make any headway in tapping this large resevoir of potentially disaffected voters, where - as we'll see in the next post - Rob Astorino's anti-tax message fared quite well. Four EDs that Berger won that Bernstein lost: ED 11 (s.w. Irvington); ED38 (Hartsdale college corners); ED53 (Arsdley village); ED56 (Hartsdale: essentially Stone Oaks condos)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)