[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH OFFICE OF THE TOWN BOARD 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY 10607 Tel: 914-989-1525 Fax: 914-993-1541 Email: JDudek@Greenburghny.com https://ny-greenburgh.civicplus.com/485/Watch-Live-Board-Meetings ]
[00:00:05]
WELCOME TO OUR TOWN BOARD SPECIAL MEETING.
TODAY'S FRIDAY, JANUARY 12TH AT FIVE.
WHAT, WHAT? WHY IS MY AUDIO COMING? TODAY'S FRIDAY, JANUARY 12TH.
WELCOME TO, UH, TOWNS BOARD SPECIAL MEETING.
TODAY IS FRIDAY, JANUARY 12TH, AND WE'RE ONLY 15 MINUTES LATE.
BUT, UM, IT'S 5 45 AND WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
AND, UH, THE TOWN CLERK WILL NOW DO, UH, THE ROLL CALL.
PRESENT, COUNCILWOMAN JACKSON PRESENT.
COUNCILWOMAN HENDRICKS, PRESENT TOWN ATTORNEY.
MR. DANKO AND PARLIAMENTARIAN PRESENT, MR. DANKO.
AND I'D JUST LIKE TO, UH, BEGIN JUST BY THANKING EVERYBODY FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR FRIDAY AFTERNOON TO, UH, UH, JOIN US ON SHORT NOTICE AND THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE STATE SENATE, ANDREW STEWART COUSINS ASKED IF, UM, UH, SHE COULD SAY A FEW WORDS TO US.
SO, SENATOR, JUST PRESS THE MIC.
SO, ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME SOME TIME.
UH, WHEN I WAS HERE FOR THE INAUGURATION, I, UM, THE, EVEN PRIOR TO THAT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT I, I DID WANT TO COME AND MAKE SURE THAT THE, UH, TOWNS, UH, AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TOWN UNDERSTOOD WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED.
AND WE HAD A DATE SET UP FOR NEXT WEEK.
AND, UM, THEN I GUESS THERE WAS A, UH, EMAIL THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE MUST FIGHT, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO RATHER THAN WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, UH, I ASKED IF I COULD BE HERE BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS AT LEAST SOME LEVEL SETTING THAT SHOULD HAPPEN AS IT RELATES TO WHAT IS GOING ON.
AND, UH, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, UM, THE PEOPLE ARE, ARE INTERESTED AND CONCERNED.
AND AGAIN, UH, WHAT YOU DO IN TERMS OF YOUR LEGAL, UH, UH, RECOURSE IS CERTAINLY PART OF DEMOCRACY.
SO I'M NOT HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO AND WHAT NOT TO DO, BUT I GUESS I'M JUST SAYING THAT, UH, THE CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE IS HAPPENING NOW.
UH, AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL AT LEAST BETTER INFORM PEOPLE ABOUT MY POSITION THERE.
UM, THERE HAS BEEN, YES, A CHAPTER AMENDMENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS CONVERSATION.
I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING, AGAIN, OVER 300,000 PEOPLE.
I'VE ALWAYS HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING GREENBERG.
UH, MANY OF YOU, UH, WELL NOT MANY OF YOU, I GUESS, PAUL AND FRANCIS FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN I BEGAN IN 2007.
UH, THE OTHER MEMBERS, AND AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU, JOY.
AND OF COURSE, ELLEN, UH, LISA, AND, UH, MR. DANKO, WHICH EVERYBODY SEEMS TO HAVE FUN SAYING YOUR NAME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY, WHAT, WHAT THE OTHER ATTORNEY WAS CALLED.
UM, BUT IN ANY CASE, THERE ARE MANY WHO ARE NEW AND, AND, BUT, BUT, UH, I THINK FRANCIS AND, AND PAUL WILL KNOW, AND MANY OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE WHO I KNOW AND I'VE WORKED WITH IN MANY, MANY WAYS, ALSO KNOW THAT I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING BOTH EDGEMONT AND GREENBURG.
I HAVE, UH, AS WELL AS YONKERS.
AND NOW, ONCE AGAIN, MOUNT PLEASANT, THIS INCORPORATION BATTLE WITH EDGEMONT AND GREENBURG HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS, YEARS, PREDATING ME.
UH, IN FACT, SUSAN TOLKIN, WHO IS A, A, UH, GREAT ASSET TO ME IN MY OFFICE,
[00:05:01]
REMEMBERS WHEN YOU WERE A CLERK OF GREENBERG, RIGHT? UH, THAT IT WAS A CONVERSATION ALSO.AND WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? OH MY GOODNESS.
WHAT WAS NEW WAS ME BEING ELECTED AND, UH, YOU KNOW, BEING TORN BOTH WAYS.
WE CAN'T HAVE EDGEMONT TO SEE, UH, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.
AND, UH, IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WRITE LEGISLATION, PLEASE WRITE LEGISLATION THAT STOPS THAT FROM HAPPENING, RIGHT? AND BECAUSE I REPRESENT EVERYBODY AND PEOPLE HAVE COME TO MY OFFICE AND EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THERE'S LESS EDGEMONT PEOPLE AND MORE GREENBERG PEOPLE, AND, UH, THEREFORE, I SHOULD LISTEN TO GREENBERG INSTEAD OF MOND.
I HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO REPRESENT ALL OF THE PEOPLE.
AND I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE LAWS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST THAT MAY NOT BE FAVORABLE TO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES.
AND THIS PARTICULAR LAW THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CORRECT WAS ONE OF THE LAWS THAT GREENBERG FELT WAS NOT FAIR TO GREENBERG.
THE LAW HAD BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS.
AND IT ALLOWED FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD 500, UH, PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, I WANNA BE A VILLAGE.
THEY CALLED FOR, UH, PETITIONS, AND THAT'S IT.
AND IT WAS PETITIONS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAD DECIDED THAT THEY WEREN'T BEING REPRESENTED.
SO IF YOU DECIDED THAT YOUR JURISDICTION WAS NOT BEING REPRESENTED, YOU COULD, ACCORDING TO THIS LAW, ASK YOUR NEIGHBORS TO SIGN A PETITION.
AND, UH, THEN IT WOULD BE PUT ON A BALLOT.
AND IF ENOUGH OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, THE 500, UH, THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA THAT YOU SECEDE FROM THE LARGER GROUP, YOU COULD DO THAT.
AND PEOPLE WERE SAYING, PLEASE MAKE A LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BECAUSE GREENBERG WILL BE HURT IF EDGEMONT GOES.
AND THEN THE SUPERVISOR SAID TO ME, AND THEN IF EDGEMONT GOES, HARTSDALE WILL GO, AND THEN WHAT WILL I DO? WHAT WILL WE DO? SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS TOLD.
AND WHAT I SAID THEN IS THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THE LEGISLATION AS IT IS, BUT I NEVER LIKE TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER ANYONE OR ANY ENTITY THAT IS FOLLOWING THE LAW AND JUST CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.
AS A WOMAN, AS A BLACK WOMAN WHO HAS REACHED PLACES AND THINGS GET CHANGED, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE.
SO I'VE ALWAYS SAID, ALWAYS SAID THAT IF I WERE TO DO ANYTHING, I WOULD DO IT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS EDGEMONT TO DO WHAT EDGEMONT DOES.
BUT I WILL TRY AND CREATE A SYSTEM THAT WILL BE A LITTLE MORE COMPREHENSIVE BASED ON WHAT NATIONALLY IS BEING DONE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT A VILLAGE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED BASED ON TODAY'S REALITIES AND THE IMPACTS AND THE THINGS THAT YOU ALL THOUGHT ABOUT IN DOING THAT, RATHER THAN BEING ARBITRARY AND SAYING, OH, FIVE HUNDRED'S, NOT ENOUGH, OR WHATEVER.
I ASKED PACE UNIVERSITY AND THEIR LAND TRUST INSTITUTE.
I ASKED DEAN, UH, HORACE ANDERSON, AND THEY WERE MORE THAN EXCITED ABOUT LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS NATIONALLY AS IT RELATES TO INCORPORATION.
THEY DID A GREAT STUDY AND THEY CAME BACK WITH A FEW THINGS.
ONE, THAT A VIABILITY OF A VILLAGE, UH, IS VERY UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED, IS NOT DONE ANYWHERE.
UH, IF IT IS 500 PEOPLE OR LESS, WISCONSIN ASKED FOR 2,500 PEOPLE.
FLORIDA HAS 1500 PEOPLE, 500 PEOPLE, WHICH WAS A VERY, VERY LOW BAR.
AND OUR, OUR NEW YORK BAR WAS TOO LOW.
[00:10:01]
THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES IS ALSO TOO LOW.THE OTHER THING THAT USUALLY HAPPENS IS THAT IT'S NOT LEFT UP TO THE, THE ORGANIZATION, OR RATHER THE ENTITY THAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INCORPORATION TO MAKE THE DECISION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A VESTED INTEREST.
AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHY THAT MAKES SENSE, UH, IN THE MINORITY, IF YOU SAY, OH, PLEASE STOP, UH, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME AND YOU ARE OPPRESSING ME, AND THEN I HAVE TO GET YOU TO AGREE TO SET ME FREE, IT'S A PROBLEM.
SO I UNDERSTOOD WHY THAT SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE ENTITY THAT IS HOPING TO NOT HAVE IT HAPPEN.
AND SO WE LOOKED AT THE, THE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CONTROLLER, WE LOOKED AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FORM A COMMISSION AND A PANEL TO WORK ON THESE ISSUES OF INCORPORATION WITH AT LEAST A HIGHER THRESHOLD OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT WHAT SIGNATURES SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BE OBTAINED AND HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
AGAIN, MY MY FOCUS WAS HOW DO WE FIX A SYSTEM STATEWIDE, NOT JUST HERE IN THE FUTURE? HOW DO WE ALIGN OURSELVES WITH OUR PARTNERS ACROSS THE NATION? HOW DO I BE TRUE TO MY WORD WHERE I SAID I WOULD NOT PUT MY THUMB ON THE SCALE AS IT RELATES TO EDGEMONT OR GREENBERG, HOW I WOULD, HOWEVER, FOSTER THE INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE NEED IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, WHICH IS WHY I INSISTED ON A STUDY.
AND THE STUDY IS BEING CONDUCTED BY CGRA GROUP THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HIRE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE STATE, SO THAT BEFORE ANYONE GOES TO THE POLLS AS IT RELATES TO INCORPORATION, THEY WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE AND WHAT THE COSTS ARE IN INCORPORATION.
THIS STUDY IS GOING TO BE DONE BY APRIL 1ST.
THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES, ALL SIDES, HOWEVER MANY SIDES THERE ARE OF THIS ISSUE WHO ARE BEING SPOKEN TO RECORDS, ET CETERA.
AND THEY ARE CHARGED TO NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE FINANCES, BUT LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THE PLACE THAT'S GOING TO BE LEFT BEHIND, AS WELL AS HOW MUCH IT WILL REALLY COST THE EDGEMONT COMMUNITY IF THEY'RE GOING TO BECOME THEIR OWN COMMUNITY.
BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD IN ALL OF THIS, CERTAINLY OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE SUPERVISOR AND OTHERS EXPLAINING, UH, YOU KNOW, IMP IMPLICATING, UH, EDGEMONT IS TRYING TO NOT BE PART OF THE LARGE ABILITIES BECAUSE, UH, OF RACISM, BECAUSE OF A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT WERE BEING ATTRIBUTED TO THIS COMMUNITY.
I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE TO, YOU KNOW, DO ANY OF THAT.
WHAT I WANNA DO IS, IS, IS I'M TOLD AND WHAT, RIGHTFULLY SO PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IF THEY LOSE THIS TAX PAID.
HOW IS THIS GONNA IMPACT YOU? I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT JUST SOMEBODY SAYING IT'S GOING TO IMPACT ISN'T ENOUGH.
AND FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE TELLING THE PEOPLE IN EDGEMONT, OH, THIS IS GONNA BE AN EASY THING FOR YOU, IT'S NOT GONNA BE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE EITHER.
SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A STUDY THAT MUST BE COMPLETED AND BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR 90 DAYS PRIOR TO ANY ELECTION HAPPENING.
IT IS MY HOPE THAT AN INFORMED ELECTORATE WILL RESOLVE ITSELF IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS EVERYBODY TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO WHEN WE PASS THE LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE, KEEP IN MIND THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSEMBLY, AND YOU KNOW HOW LAWS ARE, IT HAS TO GO IN THE SENATE, IT HAS TO GO IN THE ASSEMBLY, AND THEN THE GOVERNOR HAS TO, TO SIGN IT.
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME, SOMEBODY IN THE ASSEMBLY IS NOT THE SAME, SOMEBODY WHO REPRESENTS GREENBERG
[00:15:01]
AND EDGEMONT IN THE SENATE.SO ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHIMPSKY REPRESENTS GREENBERG AND ASSEMBLYWOMAN.
PAUL REPRESENTS EDGEMONT, AND THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN WAS NOT A FAN OF, OBVIOUSLY, SHE'S OF NOT MAKING SURE THAT WHAT I HAD PROMISED, WHICH WAS THAT I WAS NOT PUTTING MY THUMB ON THAT SCALE, BUT I WAS GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD WAS DIFFERENT, THAT NEEDED TO BE CONFIRMED, AND IT NEEDED TO BE IN, UH, THE LEGISLATION IN THE CHAPTER AMENDMENT BEFORE THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE PASSED AT ALL ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
SO I COULD PASS ANYTHING I WANT IN THE SENATE, BUT I CANNOT PASS ANYTHING I WANT IN THE ASSEMBLY.
AND BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE INTERESTS, THE IDEA THAT I CAN PASS SOMETHING IN THIS HOUSE, THAT IN THE MINDS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE IS GOING TO HARM THEIR DISTRICT, AND THAT THEY WOULD ALSO PASS IT ANYWAY, IS NOT BASED IN REALITY.
SO THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE THE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD INDICATE WHEN THE STUDY WOULD BE DUE, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANTED IS THAT IF THE STUDY WASN'T DUE ON TIME, THEN WE JUST TAKE WHAT EIC IS PUT FORWARD AS THE STUDY.
AND WHETHER OR NOT, UH, UM, I THINK THE OTHER THING WAS, WAS I GUESS WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD JUST BE IN PERPETUITY.
THE ASSEMBLY INSISTED ON AT LEAST 20 YEARS IN ORDER TO PASS THE LEGISLATION ON THEM, THE AMENDMENT ON THAT SIDE.
AND BECAUSE I FELT QUITE HONESTLY THAT THE DANGER OF NOT HAVING ANYTHING IN PLACE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A STUDY, NOT HAVING ANYTHING IN PLACE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, UH, DEMAND THAT OR, OR AT LEAST ALLOW FOR A MORE RIGOROUS, UH, UH, ROAD TO INCORPORATION IN THE FUTURE.
I THOUGHT THAT, THAT THAT WOULD ALSO BE IMPACTFUL BASED ON WHAT THE SUPERVISOR'S CONCERNS HAVE BEEN.
I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT SINCE I HAD ALREADY PROMISED, AS YOU ALL KNOW, I SAID, I CAN'T BLAME SAID, I CAN'T BLAME THE NEWER PEOPLE FOR NOT KNOWING THAT I SAID I WAS ALWAYS GOING TO EXEMPT, UH, UH, EDGEMONT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANNA CHANGE THAT.
BUT I'D ALWAYS SAID THAT I WAS GOING TO EXEMPT THEM.
SO THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF BELTS AND DIS SUSPENDED THE ASSEMBLY, PUT FORWARD, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS 2040.
AND AGAIN, I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO PASS THE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ENSURE A DIFFERENT AND MORE FAIR FUTURE THAN TO NOT.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
SO I JUST DID WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN UNDERSTANDING AND AN IDEA.
I DIDN'T WAKE UP ONE MORNING AND JUST DECIDE THAT.
AND THE THING IS, IF, IF THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN, THE EXISTING LAW THAT YOU HAVE ALLOWS FOR EVERYTHING TO HAPPEN THAT'S HAPPENING WITHOUT A STUDY, WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION, AND IT COULD JUST BE THIS KIND OF PERPETUAL CYCLE THAT ALSO WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR HARTSDALE AS WELL.
SO THAT WAS THE DIFFICULT CHOICE, AND THAT WAS THE THOUGHT BEHIND THE DIFFICULT CHOICE.
THERE HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, AGAIN, EQUAL PROTECTION.
THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHY CAN'T GREENBERG VOTE TOO, AND ALL THOSE THINGS ARE VALID, UH, CONVERSATIONS TO HAVE.
AND I AM CERTAINLY, UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION WEIGHING THOSE, THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES RIGHT NOW, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAVE INFORMATION, UH, UH, REAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE DYNAMICS OF THE FINANCES AND THE IMPACTS, WE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE AN INFORMED VOTE.
AND, UH, IT IS MY HOPE THAT THAT INFORMED VOTE, UH, ALLOWS FOR US TO, TO MOVE, TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO I JUST, I APPRECIATE THE TIME AND, UH, AT LEAST BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU MY RATIONALE AND WHY, WHY IT IS WHERE IT IS.
[00:20:01]
CAROL, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING? THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.I'M A LITTLE PERTURBED BY THE COMMENTS THAT I JUST HEARD, AND I'M SORRY THAT I WASN'T TAKING NOTES AS THE SENATOR WAS SPEAKING.
OH, COULD YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER? YEAH.
I SAID I'M, I'M A LITTLE PERTURBED BY WHAT I HEARD, AND I'M SORRY THAT I WAS NOT TAKING NOTES WHILE THE SENATOR WAS SPEAKING.
THE FIRST THING THAT SHE SAID THAT COMES TO MY ATTENTION WAS THAT IN THE PAST, IF PEOPLE FELT THEY WERE NOT BEING REPRESENTED, THEY COULD VOTE TO SUCCEED FROM A TOWN.
IN FACT, VILLAGE INCORPORATION LAW WAS WRITTEN IN ORDER TO FORM VILLAGES AND PROVIDE SERVICES, NOT AS A MEANS OF BREAKING AWAY FROM A PRE-EXISTING TOWN.
WHEN THE VILLAGE INCORPORATION LAWS WERE WRITTEN OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE ORGANIZED POLICE SERVICES.
THEY DID NOT HAVE ORGANIZED SANITATION, PUBLIC HEALTH AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO TO SAY THAT THE LAW IS INTENDED TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BREAK OFF IF THEY FEEL THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTED IS, IN MY OPINION, NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE.
FURTHERMORE, IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT EDGEMONT THINKING THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED, WHEN IS THE LAST TIME SOMEONE FROM EDGEMONT RAN TO BE ON THE TOWN COUNCIL SO THAT THEY COULD BE REPRESENTED FORMALLY? OUR TOWN BOARD ALWAYS ALLOWS PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THEIR MEETINGS SO THAT ALL OF US ARE ABLE TO STAND UP AND SAY WHAT WE WANT TO, TO OUR BOARD, AND YOU RESPOND TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.
SO TO SAY THAT EDGEMONT HAS INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE.
EDGEMONT TALKS ABOUT WANTING TO CONTROL THEIR ZONING.
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS AN EDGEMONT RESIDENT.
SO FOR THEM TO IMPLY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INPUT INTO THEIR ZONING DOESN'T SIT RIGHT WITH ME.
WE TALK ABOUT NOT PUTTING YOUR FINGERS ON THE SCALES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
THE CHAPTER AMENDMENT, AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, DEFINITELY PUTS THE FINGER ON THE SCALES FOR EDGEMONT.
THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE HISTORY THAT I'VE LEARNED TO INCORPORATE.
IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST 50 YEARS, WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD WE GIVE THEM IN LAW ANOTHER 16 YEARS TO DO IT? THE WAY THE ORIGINAL S UH, 75 37 WAS WRITTEN WAS THAT ANY PETITION THAT WAS STARTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2024 WOULD BE VALID.
IF THAT HAD SIMPLY SAID ANY PETITION FILED PRIOR TO JANUARY ONE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEARLY AS OFFENSIVE AS THE WAY IT CAME OUT.
A STARTED PETITION CAN HAVE ONE SIGNATURE THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE LEFT IN THEIR DESK DRAWER FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS AND THEN PULL IT OUT AND SAID, AH, BUT THIS WAS SIGNED BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2024.
SO I'M, I'M EXEMPTED ACCORDING TO THE NEW LAW.
SO THAT ONE LITTLE WORD MADE A BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.
WE TALK ABOUT WHAT AMY PAULIN DOESN'T WANT.
SHE IS ONE VOICE IN THE ASSEMBLY.
IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, THERE ARE 149 OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VOTE IN WHAT HAPPENS ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR.
SO THAT ONE VOICE ALONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED US TO WRITE A CHAPTER AMENDMENT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SO NEGATIVE TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
WE TALK ABOUT WANTING TO DO A STUDY SO THAT THE PEOPLE IN GREENBURG, IN EDGEMONT SECTION WOULD HAVE THE FACTS.
WELL, THE FACTS IS WRITTEN IN 2024 ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES THAT WOULD BE THE FACTS IN 2030 OR 2032.
YET THE WAY THE AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, IT STATES THAT THIS STUDY THAT'S DONE IN 2024 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE ATTEMPTS.
SO THAT IS ANOTHER SERIOUS FLAW IN THE CHAPTER AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.
I THINK I'VE SAID ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT I THINK IS NOT RIGHT ABOUT THE ORIGINAL LAW AND THE CHAPTER AMENDMENTS.
SO I WILL STOP SPEAKING AT THIS TIME, AND I THINK MIKE SCHWARTZ, UH, ALSO HAD A COMMENT THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE IF YOU WOULD ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK.
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, AND THEN YOU SCHWARTZ, WHO AREN'T
WAIT, I'M GONNA WAIT A MOMENT AND HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE
[00:25:01]
TO DO CPR HERE.I'M A 32 YEAR RESIDENT OF GREENBERG, RESIDING IN EDGEMONT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO FRAME A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT.
UM, AND THE FIRST ONE IS, IS THAT, UH, BASED ON BEING THE SIXTIES HIPPIE KIND OF GUY, I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING, I BELIEVE THAT HISTORY IS PROVEN AND NO MORE THAN TODAY, THAT PEOPLE WILL DO WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS IF THERE'S NOT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THEM.
THE SECOND CONCEPT IS THAT GOVERNMENT AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO WE PLACE IN GOVERNMENT ARE THERE TO PROTECT US FROM THAT BASIC HUMAN FRAILTY.
AS FAR AS SENATOR COUSIN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS IS CONCERNED, SHE DID EVERYTHING RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.
YOU ASKED FOR A STUDY, THE STUDY WAS COMPLETED AND WAS VERY PROFESSIONAL.
YOU TOOK A LOOK AT THOSE STUDIES AND YOU MADE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT A LAW SHOULD BE.
IT WAS VERY, VERY SMART AND SOPHISTICATED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN GENERAL, PEOPLE LIKE ME, WHO WAS A, A SOCIAL WORK ADMINISTRATOR AND A REAL ESTATE, UM, PERSON, DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT GOVERNMENT, TEACHERS, DOCTORS, PEOPLE WHO SELL STOCK, DON'T KNOW ABOUT TRANSACTIONS AND HOW THEY OCCUR IN GOVERNMENT.
SO YOU SAID, LET'S PUT TOGETHER A PROFESSIONAL COMMISSION, SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CONTROLLER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EATS APPOINT SOMEBODY, PROFESSIONALS WHO UNDERSTAND GOVERNMENT.
MICHAEL, COULD YOU DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO US? I'M SORRY.
UH, PROFESSIONALS WHO UNDERSTAND GOVERNMENT AND THOSE PEOPLE WOULD MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE NOT AN INCORPORATION, BUT A VOTE.
THEY'LL DO A DEEP STUDY, THEY'LL DETERMINE IF THE SERVICE GONNA BE, BE ADEQUATE.
THEY'LL DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S SO INJURIOUS TO ONE OR THE OTHER ENTITIES INVOLVED.
THE INCORPORATORS OR THE THOSE LEFT BEHIND, THEY'LL MAKE THAT DECISION.
I THINK THAT LAURA IS EXCELLENT.
WHAT'S MISSING FOR A LOT OF US IS THE CONCEPT OF THE VOTE.
BUT I THINK IN A LOT OF WAYS, IF PEOPLE FELT, AND I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, IF PEOPLE FELT THAT THEY WERE PROTECTED, MAYBE THEY WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE COULD LIVE WITHOUT THE VOTE IF WE KNEW WE WERE PROTECTED.
SO THIS ALL OCCURRED, AND THE SYSTEM THAT EXISTS FOR 20,450,000 PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, UM, WILL WORK FOR THEM AND PROVIDE THEM FOR PROTECTION.
THE 50,000 PEOPLE IN GREENBURG WILL NOT.
I SEE FOUR OR FIVE OF MY NEIGHBORS FROM EDGEMONT HERE.
I THINK WHAT THE SENATOR HAS TO UNDERSTAND IS A SIMPLE THING.
THIS EXCLUSION OF EDGEMONT IN THE PROCESS DOES NOT HELP GREENBERG, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T HELP EDGEMONT.
WE WANT A PROFESSIONAL ENTITY, A PROFESSIONAL GROUP, THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE THE DECISION FOR US.
THE EDGEMONT INCORPORATION COMMITTEE IS UNELECTED.
THERE ARE A DOZEN OR SO PEOPLE ON A BOARD.
THE FIVE OR SIX OTHER PEOPLE FROM EDGEMONT THAT WERE SITTING IN THIS ROOM DISAGREE WITH THEM.
AND THE SENATOR'S DECISION, WHICH WAS SO HURTFUL, NEITHER BENEFITED THE PEOPLE OF GREENBURG NOR THE PEOPLE OF EDGEMONT.
IT ONLY BENEFITED THE EDGEMONT INCORPORATION COMMISSION.
AS FAR AS THE, THE STUDY THAT'S GOING ON NOW, AND I'M INVOLVED IN HELPING WITH THAT STUDY, IT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA.
HOWEVER, SOMETHING IS MISSING.
IT'S LIKELY BY NEXT WEEK, THIS WILL BE A LAW, AND THE STUDY'S GONNA BE DONE ON APRIL 1ST.
AND IF WE FIND THAT THE STUDY ABSOLUTELY SAYS THAT GREENBERG WILL BE DEVASTATED, THEN THE STUDY WAS MEANINGLESS.
WHY WE SUCH IN A HURRY TO HAVE THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT NUMBER 8,001 THAT WENT THROUGH THE RULES COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE IN SEVEN MINUTES AND 29 SECONDS.
[00:30:01]
IS IT NECESSARY? WHY COULDN'T AT LEAST SOMEBODY TAKING A LOOK TO SEE HOW BAD THIS WOULD BE BEFORE THIS BILL WAS PASSED? AND JUST THE LAST POINT, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS NOT THE PROBLEM TO CHARTER AMENDMENT IS LIKE A KICK IN THE FACE TO ALL OF US WHO BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL BILL WAS TERRIBLE BECAUSE IT EXCLUDED EDGEMONT.WHY? WHAT POWER DOES THE EDGEMONT INCORPORATION COMMITTEE HAVE OVER OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS? THAT THEY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ME WANTING A PROFESSIONAL GROUP OF PEOPLE TO TELL ME IF I CAN EXIST AND WHAT I'M GONNA DO, WHERE I'M GONNA GO TO SWIM AND PLAY BALL AND TAKE MY GRANDCHILDREN TO A PARK, OR WHERE MY WIFE IS GONNA GO TO A SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER? 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY PARKS AND HOW MUCH I'M GONNA PAY FOR MY SERVICES AND FROM WHERE THEY'RE GONNA COME.
WHY IS THE EDGEMONT INCORPORATION COMMITTEE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SERVICING ME AND SERVICING MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN GREENBURG? WHY? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
YOU SCHWARTZ, AND THEN WALTER SIMON, YOU WANT TO, I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ANTENNA COMMITTEE.
DOES IT'S RIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING? IS THERE FREE DINNER WITH THE ANTENNA COMMITTEE? UH, NO.
AND, AND JUST UNDERSTAND THAT FRANCIS IS A MEMBER OF THAT FOR LIFE
I THOUGHT IT WAS ONLY TILL 2040.
I, I WANT, I WANNA START BY SAYING I ACTUALLY LIKE THE BILL THAT, UH, SENATOR COUSINS PROPOSED AND GOT PASSED.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? OH, I'M SORRY.
I AM A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF THE TOWN OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, UH, IN THE EDGEMONT SECTION OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
AND I ALSO HAPPEN TO CHAIR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
UM, I WANNA SAY THAT I THINK THE BILL WAS A, NOT FAR ENOUGH, BUT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
IT'S REALLY SAD THAT SHE EXEMPTED EDGEMONT FROM IT EVEN THE FIRST TIME.
YOU JUST PLEASE REMEMBER TO DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOARD.
THAT, UM, THAT'S, THAT WAS SAD.
I, WITH THE SIGNA IT WAS OBVIOUS FROM THE THING WITH, OH, ANYBODY'S GOT ONE SIGNATURE ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF A, IF A PETITION EVEN EXISTS IN EDGEMONT.
YOU KNOW WHY? I'VE ASKED TO SEE IT ON, ON ABOUT FIVE OCCASIONS AND WERE REJECTED FROM SEEING IT EACH TIME.
SO TELL ME THE PETITION EXISTS.
SO WHY WOULD YOU PROTECT THEM IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PETITION? THERE IS NO, IT HASN'T BEEN FILED, UH, WITH LISA.
IT WASN'T FILED WITH JUDY BEFORE, UNLESS SHE PUT IT IN THE CIRCULAR FILE SOMEWHERE, WHICH I WOULD DOUBT SHE WOULD'VE DONE.
THE REASON WHY EDGE ONE HASN'T HAD A VOTE IS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE LAW TWICE AS A FIRM BY THE SECOND, BY THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, UH, APPEALS COURT OF NEW YORK STATE.
OKAY, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT STONE OF THE LAW.
SO HE DID A GREAT JOB ON THE LAW, DID A VERY BAD JOB WITH THAT ONE LITTLE SENTENCE IN THE LAW, AND DID EVEN A WORSE JOB WITH THIS CHAPTER AMENDMENT, WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RHYME OR REASON WHY YOU'D EVER WRITE A LAW THAT LOOKED FORWARD FOR 16 YEARS.
IT MAKES NO SENSE, BUT IT WAS ALSO BASED ON SOME BAD PREMISES.
AND BY THE WAY, I THINK, UH, MY REPRESENTATIVE, POLAND, WHO I'VE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH ABOUT THIS, UM, PROBABLY HAS THE SAME MISCONCEPTION.
EDGEMONT IS PART OF GREENBURG.
EDGEMONT IS PART OF GREENBURG.
I AM TIRED IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY ABOUT ALL THESE FALSE EQUIVALENTS.
SEE, EI YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT HAMAS AND THE PALESTINIANS BEING THE SAME PEOPLE.
EDGEMONT IS PART OF GREENBERG.
THE EIC AND EDGEMONT ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
EIC IS A SMALL PART OF, OF EDGEMONT PERIOD.
AND FOR YOU TO KOWTOW TO THEM AND THE REST NOT AT THE REST OF MONT IS INSANE.
OKAY? THIRD, UM, THERE'S NO WAY TO OBJECT TO THIS STUDY IF WHEN IT COMES OUT.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHY DO IT? YOU ACTUALLY SAID, SAID SENATOR COUSINS.
AND BOY, I AGREE WITH THIS TOO, THAT WE NEED TO DO FURTHER STUDY AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAW.
YET YOU'RE, YOU ARE NOW PUSHING THIS LAW AND EXEMPTING, EXEMPTING
[00:35:01]
EDGEMONT FOR 16 YEARS.THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT LAW THAT ARE ACTUALLY BAD FOR EDGEMONT.
ONE, I THINK WE ALL AGREE WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE REGULAR INHA, UH, THE, THE REGULAR INHABITANTS CHANGE TO REMOVE MINORS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DID THAT IN THIS CURRENT LAW, NOT IN THE OLD LAW, BUT EDGEMONT IS UNDER THE OLD LAW.
THEY STILL HAVE TO PUT REGULAR INHABITANTS LIST CHILDREN.
WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? IN THE CURRENT LAW, YES, YOU NEED 20% SIGNATURES, OKAY, OF THE, OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS IN AN AREA.
BUT THERE'S NO MINIMUM OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO VOTE.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD GET 200 PEOPLE OUT OUT OF, OF VOTING, A POPULATION OF OVER 6,000 AND 101 OF THEM VOTE FOR INCORPORATION AND IT WOULD PASS AND TAKE A LOOK AT LOCAL ELECTIONS.
AND EDGEMONT, BY THE WAY, IS ONE OF THE WORST IN ALL OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY.
THE ONLY ONE WORSE IN SCARSDALE, THE ONLY ONE WORSE IN TURNOUT IS SCARSDALE.
WE HAD 550 PEOPLE TURNOUT FOR A $55 MILLION BOND ISSUE.
SO WHAT THE EIC IS BANKING ON IS THEIR ABILITY TO GET THEIR PEOPLE OUT.
AND YOU ARE LETTING THAT HAPPEN WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
OKAY? AGAIN, THIS IS FINALLY THE, AS MICHAEL SAID, THIS IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EDGEMONT BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS STUDY.
WE'RE BANKING ON PEOPLE ACTUALLY READING THINGS.
GO, GO, COME TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, UH, NEXT TUESDAY AND EDGEMONT WHERE WE'RE DISCUSSING A NEW $55 MILLION BOND ISSUE AND WATCH THE 30 PEOPLE THAT SHOW UP.
SO THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.
THE PROFESSIONAL GROUP THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED AND PUT INTO YOUR LEGISLATION IS THE WAY TO DO IT.
AND I BEG YOU TO PULL THIS, THE, THE CHAPTER AMENDMENTS AND USE THE SIGNING STATEMENT.
THE SIGNING STATEMENT THAT GOVERNOR HOLLE PUT OUT, WHICH ONLY EXEMPTED, ONLY EXEMPTED PEOPLE WHO HAVE FILED A PETITION WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND HAD A SCHEDULED ELECTION DATE.
IN FACT, YOU KNOW, IF I LIVED IN, IN ROCKLAND COUNTY RIGHT NOW, I'D BE PRETTY UPSET IF EXEMPTED EDGEMONT FOR, FOR NO REASON.
I AM IN ROCKLAND COUNTY, I HAVE A SCHEDULED ELECTION, OR I FILED A PETITION, BUT I'M NOT EXEMPTED.
HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? YOU, YOU'RE WAITING FOR A LAWSUIT HAPPENING THERE TOO.
ONE LAW FOR EVERYBODY IN NEW YORK STATE.
UH, WALTER AND THEN CATHERINE.
AFTER, AFTER WALTER, THEN YOU COULD, AFTER EVERYONE, YEAH, YOU COULD SPOT YOU COULD RESPOND AGAIN.
I WON'T, UH, REPEAT ANYTHING THAT THE PREVIOUS TWO SPOKE, UH, UH, SPEAKERS SAID, BECAUSE I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THEM.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE SENATOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO ON ANOTHER ISSUE.
BUT IT RELATES TO THE SAME PRINCIPLE.
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO HOW STATE FUNDING IS ALLOCATED BETWEEN THE EDGEMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND, UH, THE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT.
EDUCATION FUNDING HAS A COMPONENT THAT'S BASED UPON INCOME.
WHAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS DONE IS TO COMBINE THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
THEREFORE, THE, THE AVERAGE INCOME OF EDGEMONT STATISTICALLY IS LOWERED.
AND THE AVERAGE INCOME OF GREENBURG IS STATISTICALLY INCREASED.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO STATE FUNDING, UH, THE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT GETS LESS THAN THE, WHAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO.
AND THE EDGEMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT GETS MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO.
I HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE CENTER AND, UH, AUDITORIUM OF WOODLANDS HIGH SCHOOL, AND I POINTED THAT OUT.
AND THE RESPONSE WAS, YOU COULDN'T MAKE A LAW JUST SPECIFIC TO EDGEMONT.
I MEAN, JUST SPECIFIC TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
YOU HAD TO MAKE A LAW THAT THAT COULD BE APPLIED FOR THE WHOLE STATE.
AND NOW WE GOT A LAW JUST TO REVERSE AFTER SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE A LAW JUST SPECIFIC
[00:40:01]
TO ONE AREA.WE HAVE A LAW THAT'S SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT EDGE, ONE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WHAT, UH, SHE STOOD FOR BEFORE.
AND IT'S REALLY, IT, IT'S, IT'S REALLY, I I HAVE KNOWN, UH, THE SENATOR FOR MANY YEARS.
I KNOW SHE HAD CONTRIBUTED A LOT TO THIS TOWN, BUT I JUST UN, I JUST CAN'T FATHOM WHY THE SENATOR WILL DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT AFTER SAYING YOU CANNOT MAKE A LAW SPECIFICALLY FOR ONE ENTITY.
YOU HAVE TO AFFECT THE WHOLE TOWN AND GO AROUND AND MAKE A LAW SPECIFICALLY ONLY AFFECTING, UH, EDGE BARN.
MY NAME IS CATHERINE, LETTER OF PLAST, AND I HAVE LIVED IN GREENBURG, OFF AND ON FOR MORE THAN LITTLE MORE.
IS IT LOUD ENOUGH? YOU MIGHT WANNA HOLD IT TOO CLOSE.
HOLD IT BECAUSE YOU, WE CAN'T, YOU MIGHT HOLD IT.
YOU'RE VERY WELL
UM, A FEW THINGS, AND I DO WANNA SAY THAT OUT OF MY LIFE, I'VE BEEN IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR OVER 50 YEARS, UM, WHICH I KNOW IS UNBELIEVABLE.
BUT
THAT'S THE COMMON THREAD IN YOUR STORY.
EDGEMONT COULDN'T SHARE THEIR MONEY FOR THE SCHOOL.
I LIVE IN GREENBURG SEVEN AND EDGEMONT IS NOW EXEMPT.
NOW, WHAT I FIND VERY TROUBLING IS THAT NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THE HISTORY OF THIS VILLAGE LAW.
THIS VILLAGE LAW, WHICH THANK GOODNESS TO ASSEMBLYMAN STEVE OTIS, WHO DUG IT OUT OF THE ARCHIVES IN ALBANY FOR ME, WHEN I STARTED GETTING INVOLVED, GOES BACK TO THE JIM CROW ERA.
SO LET'S NOT DRESS UP WHY A COMMUNITY CAN VOTE.
VILLAGES WERE CREATED TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT, AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING IN 2024.
SO I CAN GIVE YOU ALL THE HISTORY, I CAN SHOW IT ALL TO YOU, AND I HAVE PROMISED TO PROVIDE IT.
BUT IT GOES BACK TO THAT, IT GOES BACK TO LETTING 500 PEOPLE OR LESS DECIDE WHAT A WHOLE COMMUNITY CAN HAVE.
NUMBER TWO, IT'S NOT THREE COMMUNITIES.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM ASSEMBLYWOMAN AMY POLLAN.
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD FROM ASSEMBLYWOMAN CHOMSKY.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD REPEATEDLY.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO OVER 90,000 PEOPLE IN A COMMUNITY AND UNDER 900,000 IN A COUNTY.
IT'S SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT EDGEMONT AND ONLY EDGEMONT TO 2040.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT DEAL IS IN FOR THIS, BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE'S A DEAL BECAUSE JUST LIKE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING, TELL THE KID WHO'S NOT GETTING A DESK TELL THE KID WHO'S NOT GETTING A, A CHAIR IN GREENBURG SEVEN, THAT IT'S BECAUSE EDGEMONT GETS THEIR EQUAL SHARE IT.
I, UH, TRY NOT TO USE MY PREACHER VOICE.
UH, I, I'M, I'M REALLY, UM, KIND OF TAKEN WITH, WITH, WITH THE TOTALITY OF THE CONVERSATION, KNOWING THE HISTORY AND THE, UM, WHEN THE LAW WAS WRITTEN OVER 40, 140 YEARS AGO, THIS LAW WAS WRITTEN IN SEPARATISM.
WE KNOW THAT NOW WE'RE STILL TRYING TO PACIFY AND SOMEWHAT BUFFER THAT KIND OF SPIRIT IN 2024.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO COME TOGETHER AS A ONE PEOPLE? I, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES TONIGHT AND IN OTHER MEETINGS AND IN OTHER CONVERSATIONS AROUND TOWN THAT I'VE HEARD GREENBERG AND EDGEMONT AND I'M, I'M WONDERING, ARE WE ALREADY SEPARATED? ABSOLUTELY.
ARE ARE WE ALREADY DIFFERENT? AND, AND I'VE HEARD SO MANY TIMES THAT EDGEMONT FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT TREATED FAIRLY OR DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF, OF TOWN OPERATION.
[00:45:01]
GO BACK TO, UH, THE PREDECESSOR OF OUR COUNTY WHO SOLD US OUT WHERE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS CONCERNED.AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 750 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUT IN PLACES LIKE EDGEMONT, SCARSDALE, MM-HMM,
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE DEMOGRAPHICS AND OR THE GEOGRAPHICS OF GREENBURG.
NOW, WHY IS ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES, ALL THE TAX EXEMPT PROPERTIES AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT IN FAIRVIEW, WHY AREN'T THEY IN OTHER TOWNS AND PARTS OF GREEN OF GREENSBURG? AND, AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THIS IS A WAY THAT WE KEEP PEOPLE SEPARATED.
AND WHEN SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE AFFECTS ANYBODY, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT.
WE CANNOT VOTE ON SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE THAT IS SEPARATION AND VOTER SUPPRESSION.
I DON'T CARE HOW MANY WAYS YOU CUT IT, SLICE IT, CHEW IT, OR VOMIT IT UP.
AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE KIND OF ISSUES.
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO GO, GO FORWARD, UH, WE GOTTA LOOK AT HOW WE DO REDISTRICTING.
I'VE BEEN TO NUMEROUS FUNCTIONS.
I ALMOST GOT HER TO SING WITH ME
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THE STATE REDISTRICTS, LOOK AT HOW THEY DID IT.
AND THIS HAS BEEN DONE, DONE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
WE ARE PUTTING BLACK PEOPLE AND UNDERPRIVILEGED PEOPLE IN DISTRICTS WHEREIN WE KNOW WE'LL BE DISADVANTAGED AND WE CONTINUE TO DO THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND EXPECTING A BETTER RESULT WHEN THINGS ARE ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.
SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS LAW.
WE NEED TO HAVE A RIGHT, AN EQUAL RIGHT, A RIGHT WHERE EVERYBODY CAN BE INVOLVED IN ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THEM WHEN IT COME TO GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES AND GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATION.
ONE OR TWO PEOPLE, A HUNDRED PEOPLE, AS MR. SHORT SAID, 101, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS 50,000 PEOPLE.
UM, BOB HERMAN, UH, WAS A SOLICITOR, UH, GENERAL UNDER, UH, BOB ABRAMS AND COUNSEL TO THE FORMER GOVERNOR.
UH, AND I 18, RE 18 YEAR RESIDENT OF HARTSDALE.
AND 16 YEARS BEFORE THAT IN SCARSDALE.
UM, I'M GONNA TOUCH ON THE POINT THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE MADE IN A DIFFERENT WAY, BUT, UM, THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT FROM A A LAWMAKING PERSPECTIVE.
AND THAT IS, UM, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EDGEMONT.
EDGEMONT IS A, IS A COMMUNITY.
IT'S NOT A RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT ENTITY OF ANY SIZE, UH, EVEN DOWN TO HAMLET.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A LAW THAT EXEMPTS INDIVIDUALS, CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DEFINE GEOGRAPHICALLY IN THIS BILL AS BEING EXEMPT FROM THE LAW THAT IT, THAT IS APPLIED TO EVERY OTHER RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
UM, IT IS THE SAME AS SAYING, YOU KNOW, ALL THE EXEMPTING, ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF DUNWOODY OR LINCOLN PARK IN, IN YONKERS OR, UH, ALL THE, ALL PEOPLE FROM, UM, 46TH STREET TO 86TH STREET ON THE EAST SIDE FOR SOME SPECIAL EXCLUSION OR EXEMPTION FROM A LAW.
UH, A LAW CAN EXEMPT CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES OR GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IF THERE'S SOME RATIONAL REASON FOR DOING SO.
BUT IT CAN'T EXEMPT INDIVIDUALS FROM IT.
IT CAN'T SAY WE LIKE THESE PEOPLE.
UM, THEY ARE, UH, THEY ARE, UH, CLAIMING THEY'RE DENIED ACCESS WITH, UH, TO THE GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE, AND BECAUSE THEY'VE LOBBIED US HEAVILY, WE ARE GOING TO EXEMPT THEM FROM THIS.
UH, THEY HAVEN'T FILED A PETITION.
NOW THEY SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME, UH, RULES THAT ARE GOVERNING ALL OF THE, UM, OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T FILED PETITIONS.
AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT TIMELY.
ANYBODY ELSE? NO, I JUST OH, YOU, OH, I'M SORRY.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT, I'M NOT GONNA BE DOING BACK AND FORTHS.
[00:50:01]
TO SAY TO YOU ALL THAT I, UH, APPRECIATE, UH, I APPRECIATE YOU.I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU BRING TO THE TABLE.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, SEE, UH, THE WAY THAT, UH, I SAW, UH, THE PROCESS.
BUT JUST AGAIN, TO EXPLAIN HOW THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WORKS.
AND I WAS TRYING TO SOLVE AGAIN, FOR THE FUTURE, UH, BASED ON CONCERNS THAT WERE, UH, BROUGHT AS WELL AS CREATE THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE COULD CREATE.
NOW, UM, THERE ARE 150 PEOPLE IN THE ASSEMBLY, AND EACH OF THEM, JUST LIKE EACH OF US IN THE SENATE, REPRESENT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, ARE REPRESENTED, UH, BY A SPECIFIC ASSEMBLY PERSON OR SENATOR.
THE BODY GENERALLY, UM, REFERS TO THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE AREA.
AND YOU COULD SEE WHY THAT WOULD WORK, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, UH, EVERYBODY WOULD BE DOING THINGS TO EVERYBODY'S AREA WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND IT WOULD BE MAYHEM.
AND I KNOW OBVIOUSLY YOU ALL WORK IN GOVERNMENT AND, UH, THAT IS WHY THAT IS.
AND JUST IN TERMS OF THE EDUCATION, EDUCATION FUNDING IS, UH, PROBABLY ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS.
THERE WERE THREE REASONS THAT I RAN, AND I ALWAYS SAY IT ALL THE TIME.
IT WAS AFTER THE, UH, CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY WHERE THE SCHOOLS IN NEW YORK WERE OWED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDERFUNDED, UH, MOSTLY BLACK AND BROWN AND POOR SCHOOLS.
AND DESPITE THE LAWSUIT AFTER LAWSUIT, THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR AT THE TIME WOULD NOT PAY BACK THE SCHOOLS.
AND THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT BAD AROUND SCHOOL FUNDING.
CLEARLY THE WAY THAT WE FUND SCHOOLS, WHICH IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMON AND I WAS ABOUT, IS YES, IT'S BASED ON, ON REAL ESTATE VALUES, IT'S BASED ON EVERYTHING.
BUT MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE AN EDUCATED ELECTORATE.
AND I'VE ALSO SAID I THINK WE NEED TO, AS A NATION INVEST IN EDUCATION, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I TRIED TO DO AND AM HAPPY THAT ACCOMPLISHED IS THAT ALL OF THE MONEY THAT WAS OWED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS OWED FROM THAT LAWSUIT THAT NOBODY WOULD PAY THE MONEY FOR, HAS NOW BEEN PAID TO EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT, INCLUDING THIS ONE.
NOW, THE CHANGE OF HOW THESE DISTRICTS ARE ASSESSED IS A STATEWIDE FORMULA THAT, AS I SAID, IF YOU CHANGE ONE THING, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE.
AND THAT IS WHY IT'S SO HARD TO GET THE CHANGE FOR EVERYONE.
BUT IF YOU CHANGE ONE, THEN EVERYBODY WANTS TO HAVE THAT CHANGE BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTS MORE EDUCATION DOLLARS.
SO WHAT I DID, AND I'M VERY PROUD WITH THE LEGISLATURE IN BOTH HOUSES, WE WERE ABLE TO PAY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
AND AGAIN, UH, THIS DISTRICT IS OWED NOTHING.
AND I'VE ALSO BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT CAPITAL FUNDING AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY.
BUT ANYWAY, I DO APPRECIATE, UH, THE TIME.
I THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME OUT.
AND I SAID, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE CONVERSATION WILL CONTINUE.
IT IS ALSO MY HOPE THAT AS THIS BOARD, YOU KNOW, IF I COULDN'T PASS A LAW, THEN EVERYTHING WOULD CONTINUE TO BE THE WAY IT IS NOW, WHICH IS AGAIN, THE PERPETUAL PETITIONS BEING FILED, CHALLENGES AND SO ON.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT IS MY HOPE THAT THIS DISTRICT, UH, THAT, THAT THIS, THIS BATTLE ENDS AMICABLY AND ENDS WITHOUT, UM, WITHOUT HARMING, UH, ANY COMMUNITY.
AND THAT WE DO PUT IN PLACE A PROCESS THAT DOES, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY FIGURE OUT HOW WE GO FORWARD.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, FOR THE TIME.
WOULD ANY MEMBER OF THE TOWN BOARD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? I, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WHAT STRUCK ME REGARDING THE CHAPTER AMENDMENT WAS THE EXTENSION OF 16 YEARS.
I RECALL YOU SAYING MANY TIMES, MANY TIMES THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT THE FINGER ON THE SCALE WHEN THERE'S AN OUTSTANDING PETITION.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S AN OUTSTANDING PETITION.
RIGHT? NONE OF US HAVE SEEN THE MEETS AND BOUNDS, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR A PETITION.
[00:55:01]
AND EVERYBODY ELSE I'VE SPOKEN TO IT WA IT, IT WAS NEVER SAID TO ME THAT YOU WERE GOING TO EXEMPT THEM BASICALLY IN PERPETUITY OR 16 YEARS THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO GO AND GO AND GO ON A PETITION UNLIKE ANYBODY ELSE.AND, AND THE OTHER COMMENT IS THAT IF THE, WHAT YOU PASSED LAST SUMMER, WHICH WHICH MAKES SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE INFORMED, WHY ISN'T THAT GOOD? UH, FOR WHEN EDGEMONT INCORPORATES WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING THAT KIND OF SCRUTINY SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN ALL THE REST OF THE STATE.
BUT IT'S THE EXCLUSION OF PETITION AFTER PETITION AFTER PETITION FOR ONE GROUP, RIGHT? AND THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S WHAT STRUCK ME.
IT WASN'T YOU, YOU'RE YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR FINGER ON THE SCALE ON EVERY PETITION THEY FILE FOR 16 YEARS.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S, AND I DON'T WANNA PAUSE, I'M JUST, I'M JUST, I'M JUST, I'M JUST, I'M JU I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I BELIEVE JOY, YOU WANNA SAY? YEAH, ACTUALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.
UM, AND I CERTAINLY RESPECT EVERYTHING THAT OUR MAJORITY LEADER HAS DONE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I I, IT IS UNCLEAR TO ME WHY WE WOULD EXEMPT A MUNICIPALITY RATHER THAN A PETITION.
SO TO EXEMPT A MUNICIPALITY FOR 16 YEARS GIVES THEM A LOT OF LEEWAY TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANNA DO FOR THE NEXT 16 YEARS IF A PETITION HAS BEEN STARTED FILED, EVEN IF IT'S JUST BEEN STARTED, THAT'S BETTER THAN SAYING YOU COULD JUST CONTINUE TO PUT OUT PETITION AFTER PETITION AFTER PETITION,
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS GIVING US SUCH PAUSE IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S IT'S LOOK, IT LOOKS LIKE, OR THE OPTICS OR IS THAT, OR TO ME OR TO US THAT EDGEMONT IS BEING GIVEN SPECIAL TREATMENT AS A MUNICIPALITY OF, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, A NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN A PETITION.
UM, I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE STUDY AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT BY EXCLUDING EDGEMONT, AND I THINK ONE OF THE OTHERS STOOD UP AND AND MENTIONED SOMETHING, UM, THEN GOING FORWARD 10 YEARS FROM NOW AND THE ECONOMY CAN CHANGE DRASTICALLY.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER STUDY.
SO THAT THEN GIVES AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO THIS.
IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY A HAMLET.
IT'S UH, THIS SECTION OF GREENBERG OF THE TOWN.
EVERYONE HAS SAID EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED TO SAY, BUT IT HURTS.
THAT'S WHY I COULD JUST SAY IT JUST, IT JUST HURTS IN ORDER FOR ME TO, AND I'M NOT GONNA REITERATE EVERYONE SAID, BUT THIS HURTS.
'CAUSE THIS, EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID SITTING IN THIS SEAT, I KEEP FIGHTING FOR US TO BE ONE COMMUNITY AND NOT SEPARATED AND WE KEEP BEING SEPARATED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I FEEL.
THAT'S HOW WE, THAT'S HOW WE FEEL.
THIS IS WHO I REPRESENT, AND WE DON'T WANNA BE HURT ANYMORE.
LOOK WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND US.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SAY THAT GREENBERG IS A BUBBLE, BUT THIS IS MY PERSONAL BUBBLE, AND I DON'T WANT US TO BE DIVIDED.
YOU MADE A BIG POINT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE KEEP HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ONE PARTICULAR AREA, ONE AREA, ONE AREA.
THAT'S ALL, THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY.
AND I LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THAT I'M NOT MAD, BUT I'M SAD.
AND THE REASON I'M SAD IS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU'VE DONE REALLY A TREMENDOUS JOB OVER THE YEARS.
A STATE SENATOR FIGHTING FOR PEOPLE WHO REALLY DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT, UM, FOR SERVICES.
YOU'VE SPOKEN OUT EFFECTIVELY, YOU'VE IMPLEMENTED LEGISLATION, HELPING PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND WHO RELY ON ON YOU.
SO IF EDGEMONT BREAKS AWAY, THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THERE'S GONNA BE MASSIVE LAYOFFS.
THE PEOPLE WHO WE SAY WE REALLY WANT TO HELP, THEY'RE GONNA BE OUT OF WORK BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO CONTINUE, UH, TO KEEP PEOPLE EMPLOYED IF, UH, WE'RE LOSING EIGHT OR $9 MILLION A YEAR OR MAYBE, MAYBE MORE.
[01:00:01]
UPSET BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY GREAT SERVICES IN THIS TOWN, WE'RE GONNA BE LOSING THE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE REALLY DEPEND ON.SO THE, SO THE PROGRAMS, WHETHER IT'S THE COMMUNITY CENTER, COMMUNITY POLICING, UM, WE HAVE SO MANY GREAT SOCIAL PROGRAMS IN THE TOWN, AND I KNOW THAT IF WE LOSE $8 MILLION, THE FIRST THINGS THAT EVERYBODY'S GONNA SAY HAVE TO GO ARE THE EXTRAS, THE THINGS THAT, UH, ADDRESS QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO THE, THE SERVICES THAT MAKE GREENBERG SUCH A GREAT PLACE, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANYMORE.
UM, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT I SORT OF SEE AND WHAT MAKES ME SORT OF UPSET IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A 16 YEAR, UM, BASICALLY EXEMPTION FOR, UM, FOR THE EDGEMONT SECTION OF TOWN, IT'S GONNA MAKE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO BUDGET.
BECAUSE IF PEOPLE ARE ASKING, UM, FOR SIDEWALKS, IF PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR NEW PROGRAMS IN THE TOWN, AND WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE 25% OF OUR TOWN CONTINUE TO BE PART OF OUR TOWN, HOW COULD YOU LEGITIMATELY FUND IT? UM, SO THERE'S GONNA BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INSTABILITY IN THE TOWN UNTIL 2040.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD.
I THINK WE'RE ALL SPEAKING, UH, WITH, WITH ONE VOICE ON THIS.
AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST HOPING THAT BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE ASSEMBLY TAKES US UP AND THE GOVERNOR TAKES IT UP, WE COULD ALL MEET AND FIGURE OUT A WAY OF, UM, ADOPTING A LAW THAT WE KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, DOES A LOT OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT YOU DID WITH THE LAW, BECAUSE MOST OF WHAT YOU DID IS GREAT.
IF WE DIDN'T LIVE IN THIS AREA, I WOULD BE THRILLED BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A GOOD LAW, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD LAW FOR EVERYBODY BUT US.
AND, AND, AND, AND THAT'S REALLY, AND SO, SO, YOU KNOW, SO I SORT OF FEEL THAT IF WE COULD ALL SIT DOWN, IF, YOU KNOW, I COPY SENT A EMAIL TO, UH, AMY IF, UH, MARY JANESKY SENT ME AN EMAIL TODAY.
SO SHE'S GONNA VOTE AGAINST THE CHAPTER AMENDMENT, WHICH I WAS THRILLED YOU KNOW ABOUT.
BUT, UH, THE THING IS, IF WE COULD GET A E IF WE COULD HAVE A MEETING WITH ALL THE PARTIES, SEE IF WE COULD WORK IT OUT, COME UP WITH SOMETHING REALLY FAIR, THEN WE CAN MOVE AHEAD AND WE'RE NOT GONNA BE FIGHTING EACH OTHER.
AND THEN WE COULD CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP, WE GOT A LAW THAT IS BETTER FOR EVERYBODY IN THE STATE.
SO YOU WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING SOMETHING APPROVED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 140 YEARS.
THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY.
SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT, UM, WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AUTHORIZING THE RETENTION OF DWARF NELSON AND ER TO REPRESENT THE TOWN AND MATTERS RELATING TO NEW YORK STATE CHAPTER AMENDMENT AFFECTING POTENTIAL VILLAGE AND CORPORATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT ANY SECOND.