Abinanti Introduces Bad Legislation

It’s certainly no secret that I lost to Tom Abinanti in the race for the New York State 92^nd Assembly District. While I wasn't happy about losing, I’m not bitter about the outcome. I’m still happy with my campaign and believe with the absence of a war chest like his and the lack of help from the party, I did pretty well. I’m hoping in the future our constituents will see the reality of these vacuous, publicity driven pieces of legislation for what they are. Phony. I hope in the future the voters wake up and vote rationally, not strictly down party lines. We need thinkers.

In a recent Journal News article, Gerald McKinstry, writes about two bills Abinanti has introduced in Albany toward “reforming” tax assessments. Our first issue with this is that it’s not reform. He states, “Fair taxation should be the hallmark of Westchester County. Replacing our patchwork assessment system should be a top priority for state, county and local Westchester officials. In court challenges, tax assessments should be judged by appropriate standards.” He might be right, but it leads to our second issue. There’s a third issue as well, not generated by Abinanti.

Issue one is that all Abinanti is doing is tacking on an additional piece of legislation to the already dysfunctional tax system. He is not reforming, replacing or innovating our tax system from Albany. Ask him. He’ll have a dazzling spin that he had twenty years to hone as a County Legislator. What he’s introduced is a revised version of legislation that was already vetoed by Governor Pataki. But Abinanti knows if he repackages the legislation and reintroduces it, it has a real chance of passing with a new Democratic governor. 

This legislation is purely another added layer of law on top of existing revaluation laws, albeit via billing and/or penalty fees and fines for non-compliance. The County will be authorized to mandate the revaluations. But as was seen with the previous legislation, they’ll still be incapable of doing the revaluations. This means all the communities that he will force to act with this unfunded state mandate will still have to do the revaluation at their expense. I am in favor of revaluation, but not as a mandate from a non-involved (until now) party.

Issue two is that he was part of the coalition in the County Legislature that has tried to take over revaluation by the County, co-opting the home rule authority of each community to do their own revaluations. In fact, the County spent $750,000 to do a photo flyover of all of Westchester County to have before and after pictures so once the bill passed, they could turn on the state's income spigot. How this $750,000 was appropriated is still unknown.

Issue three is the second piece of legislation to change the existing law to require courts to judge commercial property assessments on the basis of a commercial assessment ratio. This is another example of the state taking away our home-rule rights, almost bullying localities into doing something that they may or may not want to do. Regardless of whether they want to do the revaluation or not, it should be their choice, not the state of New York. 

Many of of legislators are attorneys. Attorneys deal with and understand the law. This is another example of Abinanti only knowing one way to get noticed: write a law or two. We have enough laws. We have enough laws on revaluation. Perhaps this one should be shelved - for good.

Greenburgh Imploding, Feiner Lost in Headlights, Board Just Lost

I attended the regular Greenburgh Town Board meeting last night. Believe me there isn't anything regular about these meetings.  I'm embarrassed that a Russian contingency came to America and our Town Board was where they chose to come to audit a typical American government meeting. I'll bet a Yonkers' city council meeting would have been better. We probably sent the Russians back wondering how they lost to us given what they just witnessed.

The stalwarts were there, salivating in anticipation of the attack, wondering when the Board's campaign “games”, wasting and discouraging the public's time, would finally end. We sat through a 17-minute movie on bullying in schools. There might be a need for this and the kids that put it together did a great job. But it still doesn't negate the fact that this is not the place for this and it wastes a lot of time that could actually cause the Town Board meetings to end at a more reasonable hour, and maybe even be productive. I'd love to get out of there before midnight.

There was a hearing for the Cablevision contract that the Board, and apparently Francis Sheehan, had finally finished and was submitting it for review. The agenda was not posted online during the day so it put most of us a bit behind. I read the contract during the anti-bullying film. I apologize to the films creators, but as I was there for the Board meeting, not a film. 

There were many points mentioned during the hearing. One of the more significant ones was that the Board is willing to enter into a fifteen year agreement with Cablevision. Fifteen years. My example to them was if they had purchased a new computer for the Town, it was already outdated. My point with the example, and with Cablevision, is that technology changes very quickly. Do we know, and for that matter does Cablevision know, what the technology will be in even five years? Probably not. Yet, they are willing to lock into an agreement that could wind up hurting the Town by being extended for this long a period. How about a five year contract with two five-year riders (or extensions) that allow the Town to renegotiate if warranted. The ground rules here are able to be set by the Board and they are clueless, choosing to pat each other on the back for a job well-done. Huh?

A representative for Cablevision spoke on his Company’s behalf. Then a representative for Verizon spoke about the contract, lambasting the parameters it and how disparate it was toward Verizon, the underdog, so to speak, against Cablevision. Wow. Underdog may be strong, but she picked this thing apart and made some very valid points. So much so, that the Cablevision representative got back up to counter her arguments.

Town Attorney Tim Lewis never said a word, which is typical. I have to wonder what purpose is served having him there? The Town Clerk, who is not there to speak, won't stop. And Paul rambling is added proof as to why we need to start and end sooner than they do. All of this does nothing except accentuate the incompetence on the Board. We have no captain, in inept crew and the ship is headed toward the waterfall with no one at the rudder. It's time this changes. Let's start this November.