Every day we witness people taking other people to court. Recently, there was a settlement to the family of a young boy, a Little League pitcher, who was severely injured when he was struck by a line-drive baseball to his chest. Ultimately, he became brain damaged after he went into cardiac arrest as there was a lack of oxygen to his brain. It’s very sad. And yet, his parent’s next step? A lawsuit! They sued Louisville Slugger, the bat manufacturer, Sports Authority, the retailer that sold the bat, and the Little League Baseball Association for damages. I’m not sure why they didn’t sue the baseball manufacturer, or the family of the boy who hit the ball, or the coach who taught the pitcher how to pitch? While the family’s suffering is substantial and will remain forever, this was a freak occurrence that is an inherent risk of the game.
In fact, with the exception of board games, most physical games assume some type of risk and of course, the extreme result may be permanent injury and even death. But everybody settled this suit for $14 million to make this go away. Do you think this is acceptable? Does it really “go away?” It doesn’t seem so. It isn’t the bat’s fault, or the retailers fault for selling the bat, and even Little League’s fault for sponsoring the game, is it? It’s a freak accident. Unfortunately it happened. As we all know, stuff happens! Does it really warrant a lawsuit? Regardless, these three victims felt it would be easier to settle than to possibly lose what, a $50 million settlement down the line?
Whenever a politician wants (needs?) publicity, they will announce a law they have either sponsored or co-sponsored. Usually it is for something inane or so specific, it will never “fly”. Invaribly, we could probably do without it with no negative impact. Case in point, NYS Assemblywoman Amy Paulin’s recent law allowing bicyclists a three foot safety berth when an automobile/truck passes a biker. It’s a terrific feel-good law and that’s it. In another example, NYS Senators David Carlucci and NYS Assemblywoman Sandy Galef announced their support for a bill to ban smoking at playgrounds. While we don't think adults, parents or care-givers should be smoking at playgrounds, its another feel-good law. It can’t be enforced by police, in fact, unless we post cops to monitor playgrounds, why bother? Because it feels good. And, what will the fine be? We all know that smokers smoke and most never stop. We also know that discouraging and disgusting pictures of smoking patients, higher prices, taxes, etc., don’t work to force smokers to quit. So what makes these two legislators believe this law will stop smoking in playgrounds? Just like the three-foot berth Paulin’s law provides bikers, it’ll never be enforced. In the end, they got your publicity.
There are laws on the books for campaign finance money and how often the candidates must file financial reports for a candidate’s campaign. It’s an incredible tedious, time consuming and non-productive tasks for a campaign finance officer or treasurer. Most candidates honestly try to keep up with the demands saddled onto them through legal requirements. These laws were designed to “protect” the public from the abuses that have been perpetrated upon them by previous candidates and politicians. In fact, the way campaign finance money can be spent is also very regulated. The days of old, where the candidates would use up their money by paying themselves and others for “services” rendered are now history. Or so you’d think! Good people donate their hard earned money to try to get their candidate in and the candidate’s abuse of those funds is how they’re thanked. Then there are those who donate for what they can get out of the candidate. And it seems like this type of corruption is happening more frequently. Simply, it all stinks!
Another daily paper’s front page, above the fold story, has the headline, “Judge rejects MTA payroll tax”. To most of you, it doesn’t mean anything. But to the countless businesses located in Westchester, and twelve other counties and municipalities), this tax of 34¢ for every $100 of payroll paid out to employees has illegally garnered over $1.2 billion for them! It’s bad enough that the MTA raises ticket prices every year to those who use their antiquated and poorly performing systems, but to start taxing people outside of the area because their track goes into a town or county is absurd. It’s the embodiment of taxation without representation.
At every turn, it seems our elected officials forget why the ran for office and for whom they work for. Here’s a clue, to represent us, not you! It has to change, but probably won't. As long as the populace remains lazy, uninvolved and cavalier about who they blindly pull the lever for, we will continue to get what we deserve.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
David & Goliath: Astorino Fights Back
If you follow the local lamestream media, and for that matter a select few of the “big guys”, you've seen the anti-Astorino barrage of opininorials and pro-HUD, pro-affordable housing and pro-big government intrusion into our lives regarding any and all affordable housing. Specifically, with the ill-settled federal housing settlement the County agreed to before County Executive Andrew Spano left office.
The misnomer of “affordable” housing is just that. It’s a ploy that was developed by those in the not-for-profit housing game to garner support for their well paid businesses and employees under the guise of a struggling “little guy”. The reality is that it is nothing so noble and just subsidized housing, formerly called welfare housing. Examples of a few of these known companies might be Westhab and Habitat For Humanity (although HFH has a bit of a different angle). What they do is mask their real purpose: developers hiding behind the not-for-profit moniker to pretend to be a caring and helping organization. The reality is they are developers who have found a loophole that would put the brakes on anybody else’s projects and exploited it for their own benefit. Notice I didn’t say exploited for their own profit? That’s the only difference. They will make sure their books show a break-even point and not a profit – all while paying their management and employees very nice salaries. Not for profit indeed!
The federal housing monitor tried to flex his federal muscles to intimidate Westchester into complying with mandates that simply weren’t part of the agreement former County Executive Andrew Spano caved in to. When I ran for County Legislator, I publicly stated I was against this agreement for several reasons, as did others. If you reviewed the 37 pages settlement agreement when it was proposed, the vagueness of the document should have precluded any agreement. We should have gone to court to fight it. However, for those who profess in a belief system that the law is the law and appointments to the bench have no consequence, again because the law is the law, watch out! Electing liberal judges also means no matter how solid your case, if the cause is one of the social agendas of that particular judge you are before, you’ll lose. Could this have been why the County Legislature, cohabiting in lock step with Spano, conceded to his agreement? Probably.
Astorino, has repeatedly stood up to and stared down the mighty federal mediator each time the Goliath tried to force a new change into the settlement equation. I have never agreed that Westchester is racist, biased or discriminatory. That said, I do agree that you can certainly find bigots, mental-midgets, and frankly a few idiots that exhibit parochial and racist thinking when it comes to anyone that is different than themselves. They are not representative of the majority of Westchester residents. In fact, I think the people of Westchester are more tolerant than people I’ve met in other parts of our country.
The feds claim that the County isn’t doing enough to change the law in Westchester regarding proof of income for HUD and/or Section 8 housing. It’s not necessary. The settlement has a provision in it stating the same thing. So if they agreed to it as part of the settlement, they’re just insisting on legal duplicity. Creating and passing a law for this would remove the landlords ability to refuse anyone a rental. Without knowing the proof of income of either, if a Section 8 housing recipient and a Non-Section 8 person applies for an apartment, and if the landlord offers the apartment to the Non-Section 8 person, they can be sued by the Section 8 recipient for proof of income discrimination. If they give it to the Section 8 recipient, he can be sued by the Non-Section 8 person for discrimination, although they can’t easily prove discrimination. It creates a lopsided equation for the small landlords that they simply can’t win.
How should we proceed? I believe CE Astorino is on the right track. By standing up to the federal administrator of this lousy HUD agreement on principle and continuing to meet or exceed the timelines in place, he has set the stage for compliance. By doing so he keeps the feds at bay. How much longer he can do this also depends on the various communities who must participate in this debacle. Good luck Rob!
The misnomer of “affordable” housing is just that. It’s a ploy that was developed by those in the not-for-profit housing game to garner support for their well paid businesses and employees under the guise of a struggling “little guy”. The reality is that it is nothing so noble and just subsidized housing, formerly called welfare housing. Examples of a few of these known companies might be Westhab and Habitat For Humanity (although HFH has a bit of a different angle). What they do is mask their real purpose: developers hiding behind the not-for-profit moniker to pretend to be a caring and helping organization. The reality is they are developers who have found a loophole that would put the brakes on anybody else’s projects and exploited it for their own benefit. Notice I didn’t say exploited for their own profit? That’s the only difference. They will make sure their books show a break-even point and not a profit – all while paying their management and employees very nice salaries. Not for profit indeed!
The federal housing monitor tried to flex his federal muscles to intimidate Westchester into complying with mandates that simply weren’t part of the agreement former County Executive Andrew Spano caved in to. When I ran for County Legislator, I publicly stated I was against this agreement for several reasons, as did others. If you reviewed the 37 pages settlement agreement when it was proposed, the vagueness of the document should have precluded any agreement. We should have gone to court to fight it. However, for those who profess in a belief system that the law is the law and appointments to the bench have no consequence, again because the law is the law, watch out! Electing liberal judges also means no matter how solid your case, if the cause is one of the social agendas of that particular judge you are before, you’ll lose. Could this have been why the County Legislature, cohabiting in lock step with Spano, conceded to his agreement? Probably.
Astorino, has repeatedly stood up to and stared down the mighty federal mediator each time the Goliath tried to force a new change into the settlement equation. I have never agreed that Westchester is racist, biased or discriminatory. That said, I do agree that you can certainly find bigots, mental-midgets, and frankly a few idiots that exhibit parochial and racist thinking when it comes to anyone that is different than themselves. They are not representative of the majority of Westchester residents. In fact, I think the people of Westchester are more tolerant than people I’ve met in other parts of our country.
The feds claim that the County isn’t doing enough to change the law in Westchester regarding proof of income for HUD and/or Section 8 housing. It’s not necessary. The settlement has a provision in it stating the same thing. So if they agreed to it as part of the settlement, they’re just insisting on legal duplicity. Creating and passing a law for this would remove the landlords ability to refuse anyone a rental. Without knowing the proof of income of either, if a Section 8 housing recipient and a Non-Section 8 person applies for an apartment, and if the landlord offers the apartment to the Non-Section 8 person, they can be sued by the Section 8 recipient for proof of income discrimination. If they give it to the Section 8 recipient, he can be sued by the Non-Section 8 person for discrimination, although they can’t easily prove discrimination. It creates a lopsided equation for the small landlords that they simply can’t win.
How should we proceed? I believe CE Astorino is on the right track. By standing up to the federal administrator of this lousy HUD agreement on principle and continuing to meet or exceed the timelines in place, he has set the stage for compliance. By doing so he keeps the feds at bay. How much longer he can do this also depends on the various communities who must participate in this debacle. Good luck Rob!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)