Republicans annouce candidate mix of Democrats and Republicans

republican
May 31, 2013
~ from the New Castle Republican Town Committee

Thursday, May 30, 2013 —NON‐PARTISAN TICKET PROMISES NEW CASTLE VOTERS TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND END TO STATUS QUO
The New Castle Republican Town Committee today announced its candidates for the 2013 Town Supervisor, Town Board and Town Justice races:

For Town Supervisor: Robert J. Greenstein
For Town Council: Adam M. Brodsky
For Town Council: Lisa S. Katz
For Town Justice: Stuart A. Miller


Rob Greenstein and Lisa Katz are registered Democrats. Adam Brodsky is un‐affiliated and Stuart Miller is a registered Republican.

Commenting on the slate, Jim McCauley, Vice Chairman of the GOP Committee noted, “After careful consideration, we selected candidates who have the skills, business experience, and, above all, the leadership qualities to perform a proper fiduciary role that places the interests of our residents and community above any political consideration or agenda.”

Asked why the GOP Committee is endorsing non‐Republican candidates, McCauley explained, “This election isn’t about partisan politics. The issues facing our town are neither Republican nor Democrat. That’s why, once again, our candidates will be running as TEAM NEW CASTLE.”

“We need fresh perspectives, people with professional experience in business and strong records of community service, who have a passion for making New Castle a better place to live and raise our families, and who believe, as we do, that the town government has to do a better job not just of informing residents of what’s going on, but involving them as well,” McCauley added.

“Only now,” he continued, “are people becoming fully aware of some of the complex issues facing us, including the reasons behind our escalating tax burden; the affordable housing settlement; Chappaqua Crossing; what has helped and what has hindered businesses from prospering in our town; and the community Master Plan and planning process.”

Commenting on the nomination, Rob Greenstein said, “This election is about ending the status quo, where year after year our residents face increasing taxes, opaque government administration, and a lack of vision and community involvement in basic planning and oversight of our common property and natural resources. It’s time for real change in our town’s leadership. I am excited about involving everyone in these issues, taking a measured and more thoughtful approach to deciding what our community really wants and needs, and about finally exposing the decision making processes that in the past have been largely undertaken behind closed doors.”

Candidates Adam Brodsky, Lisa Katz and Stuart Miller all voiced similar support and enthusiasm for the backing and endorsements they are receiving for their runs and echoed Rob Greenstein’s positions on transparency, change and the need for new leadership.

All four candidates will be cross‐endorsed by the Transparency in Government Party.

About Rob Greenstein – Candidate for Supervisor

Rob has lived in Chappaqua with his wife, Cindy, and their three children for ten years. His children attend Westorchard Elementary school and Seven Bridges Middle school. Rob is an attorney at the law firm Greenstein & Milbauer, LLP in New York City. He founded this law firm in 1995, two years out of law school. Rob also currently serves on the Board of Directors of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association. His work on the Chappaqua Crossing demonstrates his willingness to work on behalf of the residents of New Castle and fight for what’s right. Rob ran for Town Board in 2011 on his own party line, Transparency in Government. During that election, he ran on a platform of the revitalization of New Castle’s downtown business districts and the need for a Chamber of Commerce. Rob formed the Chappaqua‐Millwood Chamber of Commerce in 2012. The Chamber is approaching its one‐year anniversary with approximately 165 members, and it has been widely acknowledged as a great success. Rob graduated from SUNY Binghamton in 1989 and from New York Law School (full scholarship) in 1993.

About Lisa Katz – Candidate for Councilwoman

Lisa has lived in Chappaqua with her husband, Steve and their two children for seven years. Her children attend Grafflin Elementary school and Bell Middle school. Lisa is an attorney at the Law Offices of Lisa S. Katz, PLLC in Mount Kisco. Lisa founded this law firm in 2011, after having worked both in private practice at Manhattan law firms and as in‐house counsel at various public companies. Lisa has spent almost 20 years advising companies in all manner of business transactions, corporate compliance and SEC matters. Much of this work requires financial understanding and inquiry, which she will bring to the Board. She firmly believes in educating the community on important issues, and will bring common sense and practicality to the Town Board. Lisa graduated from both the College of Arts and Sciences and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1991 and from Fordham Law School in 1994.

About Adam Brodsky – Candidate for Councilman

Adam has lived in Chappaqua with his wife, Cathy and their four children for nine years. His children attend Westorchard Elementary school and Seven Bridges Middle school. Adam is an attorney, serving as Director of Commercial Properties and General Counsel for Buckingham Trading Partners, Inc., a family‐owned real estate company with a portfolio of shopping centers, apartment buildings and office properties, including commercial property in Chappaqua. Adam has worked as a real estate attorney with the firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobsen and was Director of Development and General Counsel for Gateway Colocation, a company offering services to telecom and internet service providers. Adam currently serves as Public Member of the Board of Directors of the Chappaqua Volunteer Ambulance Corp. and is a former member of the Muhlenberg College Board of Trustees. He has a vast knowledge of business negotiation and cost cutting. Adam has lived his entire life in Northern Westchester. He will bring his breadth of experience in the private sector to the Town at this critical time. Adam graduated from Muhlenberg College, B.A. and from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, J.D. with honors.

About Stuart Miller – Candidate for New Castle Town Justice

Stuart has lived in Chappaqua with his wife, Beth and their three children for ten years. His children attend Roaring Brook Elementary school and Bell Middle school. Stuart is an attorney and partner with the law firm of Wilson Elser, LLP in White Plains. Stuart is a litigator and specializes in counseling his clients during catastrophic losses. Stuart was recently appointed the Co‐Chair of Wilson Elser’s National Transportation Practice Team. In 2011, Stuart was honored and named by the Business Counsel of Westchester as one of that year’s “Forty under Forty Rising Stars.” Stuart’s zeal for excellence in the practice of law was recognized in 2011 by the Appellate Division, Second Department, which unanimously appointed him to a four‐year term on the Character and Fitness Committee for the 9th Judicial District for the State of New York. In this role, Stuart screens recent bar examinees for admission to the bar and also provides recommendations to the Court as to the re‐admission of applicants who have been suspended from the practice of law. Stuart graduated from Hamilton College in 1994 and Brooklyn Law (Richardson Merit Scholarship) in 1997.

Further information will appear on the New Castle Republican Town Committee website at http://NewCastleRTC.org or can be obtained by contacting Jim McCauley at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


Comments(43):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

Glad to see that the voters will have a choice this year when it comes to who will represent us on our town board.  While it’s interesting that there are no registered Republicans on the Republican slate, people should realize that local issues have nothing to do with the national parties.

By Good for New Castle on 05/31/2013 at 6:38 am

Finally a non-partisan ticket running on the issues.  I sincerely hope that the voters in New Castle take the time to research the candidates and not simply pull a party lever.  Regardless of who you vote for, vote on issues not party line. 

It appears that we voters now have real and distinct choice.

By Independent Voter on 05/31/2013 at 6:50 am

When Rob Greenstein wins, he becomes Penny’s boss.  Her retirement papers are probably drawn up either way.

By Resident for Real Choice in Elections on 05/31/2013 at 7:17 am

Finally putting partisan politics aside - choosing the perfect candidates that will fight for our merchants and our town - awesome!

By Hailey on 05/31/2013 at 8:21 am

Adam M. Brodsky’s family business owns the dilapidated yellow building and adjacent property on Nth. Greeley Ave…this building while vacant for years was in disrepair even while rented, even while this family was collecting rent on it.  It has been an eyesore for decades.

It has sat empty while the town has searched for appropriate properties for affordable housing.  This location would be ideal, but this local family was not interested in considering its use for the better good.

In my view this is a poor recommendation for this candidate’s character as someone to represent the best interests of the town.

By Yikes ! on 05/31/2013 at 8:25 am

As a registered Democrat, I thank the New Castle Republican Town Committee for this slate and for focusing on the best interests of our town.

By A Thankful Democrat on 05/31/2013 at 8:40 am

Great to see another contested election.  I strongly believe that partisan politics have no place in local elections.  Let’s hope that the residents become involved and that there are serious, in depth discussions from all of the candidates on the crucial issues facing our Town.

By Roberta Galant on 05/31/2013 at 8:56 am

Exactly what qualifications does Greenstein have that leads anyone to believe that he could be an effective Supervisor?  He has NEVER served the Town in any official capacity whether on the Planing Board, ARB, MTF etc.  He only has strong views on how to protect the merchants of this Town.  He is totally unqualified and what will he do when there are conflicts for his time between his law practice and Town obligations.  I would have no problem with him running for a Board seat but I could never vote for him as Supervisor. 

Also congrats to the Republican Town Committee for being unable to find any Republicans willing to step up and having to reach out to the Democrats to fill a slate

By What a joke!! on 05/31/2013 at 9:06 am

It looks like Team New Castle is the way to go!!  A ticket of smart, experienced professionals who understand the issues and have the ability to handle the complex issues facing our town.  Stark contrast to the Democratic ticket..

This is big news!! Why did New Castle Now bury this story at the bottom and feature less relevant stories written by the Town Administrator???  That hardly seems impartial…

By This is Great! on 05/31/2013 at 9:15 am

My understanding is that if Penny’s wins, she will be receiving her NYS pension and a Supervisor’s salary.  Gotta love NYS politics…

By Penny's Pension on 05/31/2013 at 9:25 am

Let’s take some time out of our busy lives and give this serious consideration.  I’ve known Rob for years—sharp intellect, vision for the future, and a passion to do what’s right, not necessarily what’s easy.  He truly has the town’s best interests at heart.  I’m a 13-year resident.  It’s time for a change, and he and the other candidates on this slate have my support.

By Ed Phillips on 05/31/2013 at 10:17 am

There is a real possibility of changing decades of status quo in November.  After many years of essentially uncontested elections, the 2011 election was unusually close, but there was not really a united opposing ticket.  Despite a close call on the supervisor vote in 2011, Democratic Party officials were glib, with Town Justice David Zuckerman stating:  “The story that never gets out is how many people we would ask ‘is there anything you want to ask us about? Anything you want to talk about?’  They consistently would say to us ‘no, everything’s great, we love this town.’”  That statement, made only 18 months ago, was disconnected from the reality at the time that the Town of New Castle was facing significant issues.  It is emblematic of a culture of comfort, complacency, and lack of vision.  And while people do love this town, few would argue that it couldn’t be much better on a number of fronts.  I look forward to the months ahead as we get to hear the candidates articulate their views and vision.  This election is not about party politics as usual, it is about who has the right vision for the Town of New Castle and can harness the resources and strike the right balance to make it happen.  Hopefully by the time we get to November, it will be self-evident what we all need to do at the voting booth.

By Mark Mutkoski on 05/31/2013 at 11:18 am

I think one of the most important issues facing the candidates is the issue of the Conifer building along the RR tracks.

I would like to know what this slate of candidates would do about it if they are elected.

By Nora Mackenzie on 05/31/2013 at 11:23 am

Considering that Penny will be collecting her pension, as well as her Supervisor’s salary, will she be in a position to impartially negotiate contracts with our unions?

By Union loyalist on 05/31/2013 at 12:16 pm

@ Penny’s Pension,


Penny Paderewski earned her pension, why should she not collect it.  If she is elected, do you expect her to work for nothing.

By Bob on 05/31/2013 at 12:41 pm

I am delighted that there are 3 small business owners on the Republican ticket. I would be equally delighted if our current town board was more interested in the well being of our businesses & their owners, many of whom live in our community, instead of just focusing on tax revenues derived from each lot.

By Small Business Owner on 05/31/2013 at 12:51 pm

The guy has the heart of a lion, the guts of a bull dog, and is fearless, and very well spoken! He has a stronger sense of common sense then any three people put together that are seeking elected office. He represents the heartbeat of New Castle like no one else before him, except for Mark Tulis, who at the time was an excellent town supervisor. If Mr. Greenstein is elected into office, he may go down in history as being the very best leader town hall has ever seen. If Mr. Larry Dittleman was alive he would be backing Greenstein and Company, and if you know who Tulis and Dittleman are, then you know how they represented New Castle, and what they represented to New Castle, and you would then VOTE for RG, because he will act like an AG and stop all the BS! Who knew he was running!

By What qualifications you ask! on 06/01/2013 at 6:28 pm

Three small business owners? I suppose that the three attorneys on the GOP ticket are all technically “small business owners”, but I really don’t see how any of them have any specific experience that relates to running a small retail establishment in one of our town’s commercial districts. How exactly does having a small law practice give one special insight into the issues that impact someone trying to keep a clothing boutique or small restaurant afloat? If I wanted, for example, to get a realistic assessment of whether or not the Napoli plan was likely to improve downtown Chappaqua, I don’t think my first choice for providing an independent assessment would be a personal injury lawyer. Yet that is exactly where the steady drumbeat of support for the plan on NewCastleNOW is coming from.


Personally, I would be more worried about figuring out how to stop the tax revenue from the largest commercial taxpayer in town from disappearing. Unfortunately, the GOP candidate for supervisor seems to be committed to giving Summit Greenfield every possible opportunity to continue having the assessment of Chappaqua Crossing reduced, pushing the town’s tax base closer and closer to 100% residential. I’m not sure what I was thinking when I voted for him for town board the last time around. I won’t be making that mistake again.

By West Ender on 06/02/2013 at 1:28 pm

How does Greenstein reconcile his previous position where he was championing the chamber of commerce with the demands of this position that require he not show the slightest bit of bias toward the chamber of commerce?  I supported his candidacy for a board seat last time and by the end of the short race, he seemed completely uninterested to the point were he didn’t even take the candidate’s night seriously.  One minute the Chamber of Commerce is singing the praises of Penny for all of her help during the storm and other issues and now they are running a candidate against her.  If he is ready to take this seriously, I would rather see him and ms. katz run for seats on the board.

By Greenstein Redux on 06/02/2013 at 3:53 pm

@ Greenstein Redux,

I don’t remember the Chamber of Commerce singing the praises of Penny for all of her help during the storm.  I don’t remember that at all.  What I do remember is Greenstein constantly providing residents with contact information for all of our Federal, State & local officials, Con Ed & our Town Administrator, Penny Paderewski. 

I remember a total lack of leadership from Town Hall.

By The Storm on 06/03/2013 at 5:53 am

Will Mr. Greenstein be resigning from his position with his law firm to devote the appropriate time to the supervisor position?  I also have concerns that he spends an inordinate amount of time posting on facebook and other sites all day long while he claims to have a job already.

By what's the deal on 06/03/2013 at 8:35 am

Greenstein’s biases? How does Paderewski reconcile hers including her son the union employee of the town?  There is no way anyone who lives in a town that runs for town office will not have some sort of previous bias.  What you should look for is integrity; can the winner put aside their personal biases for the good of the town.  Greenstein can.

By Stop It on 06/03/2013 at 8:48 am

To Nora Mackenzie- you ask a pertinent and important question. Conifer building is much closer to fruition and reality than retail at Chapp Crossing yet these candidates have only been interested in and vocal about CC. The Conifer building has the potential to change Chapp forever, to damage the character of our town , and to create safety issues. These TB candidates have been virtually silent on this and almost every other issue but one. Their motto is transparency in government. It is transparent is that they are and have been opposed to retail at Chapp Crossing for years but have been invisible on the numerous other issues our town contends with daily.  It is painfully transparent that they are running on one single issue and that is to block, stop, and obstruct the CC project. There is much to be concerned about regarding retail at CC and we should not take it lightly but to elect a Town Board and Supervisor based on one single issue is short sighted and will be damaging to our community at large.

By Thinking big picture on 06/03/2013 at 11:50 am

What a West Ender thinking about property taxes! Are you kidding me! Look at what you did to the Millwood Fire District? You delayed the project 18 years! You caused several small businesses to go out of business! You caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent and wasted! You caused hundred of thousands of dollars to be respent! You backed one of the most expensive projects that is going to go over budget by millions! Please don’t worry about Chappaqua Crossing tax base if you are a West Ender! Stay out of the affairs of Chappaqua, your views combined with the support you are successful at drumming up will only financially bloat the matter even more! One last thing, you are responsible for using taxpayers money to rebuild what was a privately owned Rail Road Station building because you wouldn’t give a private owner the permission to lease it out! Thanks for your advice, but keep it to your side of town as it has a history of being no good!

By Go deaf ! on 06/03/2013 at 12:18 pm

@ What a joke, I believe it’s a good thing that Greenstein never served on the Planning Board, ARB, MTF etc.  We need a fresh approach.  Someone who is not afraid to rock the boat. 

Congrats to the Democratic Town Committee for a slate filled with a life-long bureaucrat, somoene left off their slate in the last election and a real estate broker who in 8 years on the board has had no impact. 

By The Jokes on the Dems on 06/03/2013 at 1:18 pm

How are these candidates the end of the status quo? The complaint of many is that we are a one party town, for years dominated by Democrats. That is true.Of these 3 candidates 2 are Democrats and one is unaffiliated. So how is this a change from the status quo? 

If all you care about is preventing Summit Greenfield from developing Chappaqua Crossing then vote this ticket. If you believe that we have multiple issues and many challenges in the years ahead other than Chapp Crossing than this slate of candidates is unacceptable. Ms Katz lives near CC (as does the editor of this blog). Her CC opposition is well documented. Mr Greenstein has been front and center abainst CC retail but instead publicly supports the Napoli plan. Neither have weighed in on Conifer, Library, schools, taxes, police, DPW etc.

Last year Ms Katz wrote a petition meant to sway residents against the development by writing that a sewage treatment plant , big box stores, and fast food chains were included in CC. They were not! The NIMBY gang already opposes but this petition was meant to scare the rest of us. Mr Greenstein then circulated the petition and he regularly referred back to all the signatures as evidence of broad opposition. In fairness to Ms Katz, she did offer an explanation a year later but that explanation is/was not plausible. Now Katz and Greenstein are running for Town Board?

In addition, it is not honest to call 3 lawyers with small practices small business owners in comparison to our local merchants. That would make my internist and dermatologist business owners too.

By Resident on 06/03/2013 at 3:23 pm

One of the reasons I moved to Chappaqua was because it had a nice little downtown that functioned but wasn’t fancy, one that I could go to in sweatpants and unshaven and still feel comfortable.  We still have that.  The Napoli plan wants to jam waaaaay too much into an area that doesn’t need it, or particularly require it. There is not that much demand for additional retail in Chappaqua, that’s what we have Mt. Kisco for.  You want some culture? Go to the Jacob Burns in Pleasantville, or hop a train for the city. 

Chappaqua Crossing’s retail project is as misguided as the Napoli plan.  If, and I don’t think one would, a major supermarket decided to go to Chappaqua Crossing, then it would be the death knell for the A&P in Millwood.  That’s a box that would be harder to fill than the D’Agostino’s site.

And the Conifer project? It has all of the charm of a Ramada Inn alongside I-95.  There are plenty of low cost/low income developments throughout the country that are appropriate in scale and have architectural merit.  This is not one of them.

There is a common thread that runs through Chappaqua Crossing and the Conifer project - a lack of effort to engage the community in dialogue before putting forth their proposals.  The Napoli plan is less of a “threat” in that is more an architect’s pipe dream than an imminent development.

I don’t think our downtown is perfect the way it is, but it is the downtown we deserve, given our population and infrastructure. Before we start down the road of any radical rethinking of what our town should be, how about getting a few coats of paint on some of our store fronts, some new shingles here or there (are you reading, Squires?).  It was nice to see Petticoat Lane, Mikolay, King Street and Sherry B. make an investment in their store fronts.  Hopefully, other owners will follow suit. 

We don’t need to be bigger but we sure can be better.

By Oy vey on 06/03/2013 at 7:37 pm

One of the reasons I moved to Chappaqua was because it had a nice little downtown that functioned but wasn’t fancy, one that I could go to in sweatpants and unshaven and still feel comfortable.  We still have that.  The Napoli plan wants to jam waaaaay too much into an area that doesn’t need it, or particularly require it. There is not that much demand for additional retail in Chappaqua, that’s what we have Mt. Kisco for.  You want some culture? Go to the Jacob Burns in Pleasantville, or hop a train for the city. 

Chappaqua Crossing’s retail project is as misguided as the Napoli plan.  If, and I don’t think one would, a major supermarket decided to go to Chappaqua Crossing, then it would be the death knell for the A&P in Millwood.  That’s a box that would be harder to fill than the D’Agostino’s site.

And the Conifer project? It has all of the charm of a Ramada Inn alongside I-95.  There are plenty of low cost/low income developments throughout the country that are appropriate in scale and have architectural merit.  This is not one of them.

There is a common thread that runs through Chappaqua Crossing and the Conifer project - a lack of effort to engage the community in dialogue before putting forth their proposals.  The Napoli plan is less of a “threat” in that is more an architect’s pipe dream than an imminent development.

I don’t think our downtown is perfect the way it is, but it is the downtown we deserve, given our population and infrastructure. Before we start down the road of any radical rethinking of what our town should be, how about getting a few coats of paint on some of our store fronts, some new shingles here or there (are you reading, Squires?).  It was nice to see Petticoat Lane, Mikolay, King Street and Sherry B. make an investment in their store fronts.  Hopefully, other owners will follow suit. 

We don’t need to be bigger but we sure can be better.

By Oy Vey on 06/03/2013 at 7:52 pm

Dear Mr. Greenstein, what laws would you terminate in your first 100 days? What town laws would you modify to make town hall more workable? What pro business steps would you create? How would you reduce the review process for one third of the applicants walking into town hall? What other innovative ideas would you move forward with? How would you increase the commercial tax base? The above questions are also for Penny. Mrs. Penny P., you have the advantage of knowing exactly how town hall works. For those that know you, we have all seen you “roll your eyes in disgust against town procedure in some fashion or another.” What would you do, so that you never have to roll your eyes in disgust again at how town hall works? What would you do in your first 100 days? I hope each candidate is already working right now on what they expect to get done in the first 100 days! I would just like to read how they would remark.

By First 100 days on 06/03/2013 at 8:10 pm

What is Paderewski, Buckley and Wolfensohn’s position on Conifer?  What is their position on CC?  What are everybody’s position on the Napoli plan?  What are the plans to deal with escalating personnel costs based on the defined benefit pensions?  Would either slate or any candidate support a turf field on town property?  Who supported and voted for the Gazebo?  What is their vision for the future?

By Question them all on 06/03/2013 at 10:06 pm

@Resident,  you are absolutely correct on all fronts.  There is a lot more to running this town than Conifer and CC.  How about revaluation, sewers, budgets, capital improvements etc.?  I think it is important that you serve in some capacity for the Town before deciding that you want to be on the Board or Supervisor.  Lack of experience is a problem when you have no idea of how things work in the Town or Westchester County.

By You are correct on 06/04/2013 at 8:56 am

Lisa Katz is a terrific choice for council person.  I have heard her speak before the Board, always with intelligence, civility and good sense . 
She has fully explained that all the information in the first iteration of the petition came directly from the Town’s own records .  “Resident” above tries to spin this, but it is “Resident” who is the dishonest fear monger.

By Bob on 06/04/2013 at 9:09 am

I am very pleased to see that Lisa Katz is running for council person.  She has a keen interest in what is best for our town.  She has always spoken intelligently, civilly and factually before the Board.

Above, “Resident”  refers to the original iteration of the Katz petition and finds her explanation not plausible.  The information in that first petition came directly from the Town’s records concerning the possible uses for CC.  It is ‘Resident’ who spins deliberately and dishonestly.  It is “Resident” who is the scare monger. 

I have heard no good reason to change the zoning at CC crossing to retail, not from any resident who must have a new big grocery, not from any member of the Town Board and for any who are paying attention,  certainly not from the Planning Board who has studied it thoroughly. 

By Bob on 06/04/2013 at 9:46 am

Because the Republicans have selected to endorse a bi-partisan slate, the Dems are now forced to run on their record.  Let’s see the Town Board’s record:  runaway taxes, pension costs exploding, more mandates, union control of our schools and town hall, horrific response to Hurricane Sandy, a $250,000 gazebo, obsessive focus on affordable housing, empty stores in town.

I would not want to run on this.  Easy to see why they would much prefer to run on the Obama ticket with a class warfare platform. You don’t have to be accountable…

Editor’s Note: consulting reference deleted. Write .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for explanation.

By What I Love Most About This on 06/04/2013 at 10:04 am

@Go deaf,

“You caused millions and millions of dollars to be spent and wasted!”
“You backed one of the most expensive projects that is going to go over budget by millions!”
“you are responsible for using taxpayers money to rebuild what was a privately owned Rail Road Station building because you wouldn’t give a private owner the permission to lease it out!”

How about some facts?  The last statement is just plain false.  Mr. Rotta was never interested in leasing out the railroad station.  He always hoped it would just fall down on its own. 

The rest of your statement is full of inaccuracies and is downright rude

By Facts please on 06/04/2013 at 11:19 am

Bob- you are incorrect – Resident has it right. Lisa Katz took almost a year to explain herself and her explanation doesn’t hold water. She claims that a town official (in the towns record as you say) first mentioned sewage treatment and other possibilities for CC. But these were mentioned as a hypothetical, a possibility that CC could contain some unwanted structures and businesses. She took that “possibility” and stated in her petition that Summit Greenfield at Chapp Crossing will be the home to a sewage treatment facility, fast food with neon lights, etc. That was meant to incite and scare residents in order to get their signatures. It got mine. There is a big difference in stating something might happen or potentially could happen and stating as fact that it is happening. Then Mr Greenstein sent it to everyone and he brags about all the signatures that were obtained through deceiving fellow residents. As stated, neither of them fessed up or offered an explanation until a year later at a recent TB meeting and even then the explanation was phony bologna.

By Get the facts straight on 06/04/2013 at 1:11 pm

There is little doubt that Penny is an experienced town administrator.  There is also little doubt that Greenstein has proved to be an effective leader.  We need both - different skill sets.  I hope Penny stays in her current position if she doesn’t win.

By Stay Stay Stay on 06/04/2013 at 2:35 pm

Will the Democrats be having a cup cake sale to raise money for their campaign?

By Cup cakes anyone on 06/04/2013 at 10:13 pm

@Facts please,
Did you forget that Mr. Napoli appeared with an applicant to rebuild the Rail Road Station for almost a year? The questions coming from the West End were all pointed at making it difficult for that application to proceed forward! Was the Millwood Fire District not delayed 18 years in the goal of building a new firehouse by many members of the West End, that took a $7m project and doubled it by supporting StoptheMillwoodfirehouse.com? Didn’t the West End fire district pay out on hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions on professional fees and then scrap them, and then hire all new professionals? Many individuals and outsiders always wanted to lease the Millwood Rail Road Station, but West Enders always went against such plans - do you not agree or you really don’t know? Are you not aware that Hala is on record that the site of the new firehouse is going to cost the taxpayer 50% more due to the decisions that they were forced to make? Who are you, because you do not seem to know about the area you live in, and I live in Chappaqua, so please keep your views to yourself about CC. 

By Napoli Millwood Plan on 06/05/2013 at 10:15 am

@ Get the facts straight,

Your spin is the phony bologna.

By stop the spin on 06/05/2013 at 4:30 pm

So, let me get this straight?  Katz reiterates what the Town Board suggested as a proposed use for CC and she is wrong and the Town is right?  Get the facts straight, are you working for the Town or Summit Greenfield?  The petition was drafted early on as a response to the current Board’s uninformed and overbearing proposal and I for one applaud Katz if she got the Board to back off some of their suggested uses for the property.  The Board just wants an easy excuse not to listen to its residents.  The current Board is doing nothing to reach out to residents.  WE NEED A CHANGE!

By Get Real on 06/06/2013 at 11:52 am

@Napoli Millwood Plan,

I know I was involved with negotiations for leasing the Train Station.  I know that Rotta pulled out after money was spent on lawyers to draw up the contracts.  I know that Rotta refused to allow ANY parking near the train station thereby making it impossible for any Leasee to succeed. Mr. Napoli had nothing to do with the Train Station not being leased.  Rotta owned it and did not want to lease it.  WestEnders were NEVER against any plans to lease that property and I know the MTF supported it.

You stated that the Firehouse is going to go over budget by millions.  What facts do you have to support that?  As far as I know the project is on budget and groundbreaking is near.  I do agree that a lot of money was wasted on the originally designed oversized firehouse.  That is in the past and I think WestEnder’s helped to stop what would have cost millions more than the current, more rational plan.

I will continue to voice my views on CC.  Bully’s have no place on this blog

 

By I know what I know and I am not a WestEnder on 06/06/2013 at 12:37 pm

@Get Real,
You have no Idea of how much of change you need…....You all have no Idea….....But some do and they are spreading the word(TRUTH) as am I…..

By J.S.C. on 06/07/2013 at 4:30 pm


Post a comment:

Display Name*:

Your Display Name will be associated with this comment on NewCastleNOW.org. We encourage commentators to use their real name or initials.

We encourage civil, civic discourse. In other words, be pithy and polite. All comments will be reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.