The Spa and Chappaqua Crossing: An update from Supervisor Rob Greenstein

March 21, 2014
by Rob Greenstein

I’d like to provide residents with a brief update on the Chappaqua Crossing and Spa at New Castle land use applications.  First, however, I’d like to take a moment to talk about zoning moratoriums and explain why, as Supervisor, I have not favored taking this legislative step.

At the present time, the loudest calls for adopting a moratorium seem to be coming from residents who are opposed to the Spa at New Castle project.  I certainly can appreciate their concerns.  As Supervisor, however, I also have to balance the downsides and legal limitations of adopting a moratorium.  Under New York law, a municipality may not adopt a zoning moratorium solely as a means of assuaging community opposition to a land use project.  In fact, courts have struck down zoning moratoriums that were enacted solely to put the brakes on controversial projects.  The law regards those types of moratoriums as unconstitutional and void.

Zoning moratoriums tend to have adverse economic consequences as well because they temporarily suspend development activity.  Although moratoriums typically allow property owners to apply for hardship exceptions, they are a blunt instrument and drastic measure for any municipality.

There was a time, roughly one year ago, when I advocated for the adoption of a zoning moratorium while the prior town board was studying the environmental impacts associated with the retail zoning proposal for Chappaqua Crossing.  At that time, I was concerned that creating a third retail business hamlet would undermine our existing downtown and Millwood business hamlets.  Nevertheless, the prior town board did not adopt a moratorium, and instead went ahead and completed the SEQRA review for Chappaqua Crossing.  The findings statement that was adopted last year for Chappaqua Crossing concluded that retail development on the site would not adversely impact our existing business hamlets, and that other impacts could be adequately mitigated.

We can’t go back and rewrite history.  That’s what we’re working with today.  In my opinion, the time for a moratorium has passed.  The master plan will not be updated overnight.  In the meantime, our town must remain open for business and keep moving ahead.  As we proceed with the update, developers are on notice that the town is studying its zoning and that changes could be implemented before their projects receive approval.

More importantly, I am convinced that with smart planning and input from our community, we can shape the future of Chappaqua Crossing so that any future development on that site brings new and different amenities for our residents while enhancing our commercial tax base.  If we get this right – and I believe we can – the town has a tremendous opportunity to not only help put the Chappaqua Crossing campus into productive use, but to rejuvenate our existing business hamlets at the same time.  That’s why the Town Board is forming a business development advisory committee and moving ahead with our master plan update.

Let me emphasize one thing I just mentioned – enhancing our commercial tax base.  I know there are some residents who would prefer that our business hamlets did not grow or change.  The problem with that view is that it is not economically sustainable.  Our property taxes make our community unaffordable to many young families, drive-out our seniors and empty nesters, and ultimately will drive down our property values.  A vibrant commercial tax base is essential to our community’s long term fiscal health.  I’m sure there will be disagreements along the way, but I hope almost everyone will agree there is work to be done, and we cannot afford to be complacent or make a sport out of shouting down new ideas.

With respect to the Spa at New Castle project, I have helped facilitate a meeting with the developer and some leading opponents of the project.  I have also offered to meet with the opponents of the project, and hope to do so in the near future.  We will work together and try our very best to make it a win-win for all.

On Chappaqua Crossing, the Planning Board is completing its work on the revised Preliminary Development Concept Plan submitted by Summit Greenfield.  The collaborative process between Summit Greenfield and the Planning Board has been extremely productive, and the modified PDCP is expected to include a number of positive changes that the Town Board is looking forward to reviewing.  Our goal is to help shape Chappaqua Crossing to likewise make it a win for the community.


Comments(59):
We encourage civil, civic discourse. All comments are reviewed before publication to assure that this standard is met.

Here we have it folks,  Rob Greenstein, huckster par excellence.

By more baloney on 03/21/2014 at 9:25 am

Greenstein,

You are using anything and everything to procede with your mission to develop, develop, develop.  You have not shown, as the previous board did not show any financial benefits to these developments. In fact, they have been shown to be di minimis.

Everything you are doing is what you said should not be done while you were running. Blaming the previous board does not cut it.  You/we knew the picture before the election.

You are a hypocrite .

By Jane P. on 03/21/2014 at 9:58 am

Mr Greenstein – this would be funny if it weren’t so darn sad. For years you insulted, derided and criticized the previous administration because they negotiated with the developer at Chapp Crossing. You, as resident, community activist, head of Chamber of Commerce and candidate regularly and repeatedly insisted that no zoning changes should be granted to the developer. You insisted that the master plan must be updated before any zoning changes or developments move forward. What you were saying and did say is that there should be a moratorium. You acknowledge just that in this letter above. You are a lawyer and You now recognize, in your own words – “Zoning moratoriums tend to have adverse economic consequences as well because they temporarily suspend development activity.  Although moratoriums typically allow property owners to apply for hardship exceptions, they are a blunt instrument and drastic measure for any municipality. Under New York law, a municipality may not adopt a zoning moratorium solely as a means of assuaging community opposition to a land use project.  In fact, courts have struck down zoning moratoriums that were enacted solely to put the brakes on controversial projects.  The law regards those types of moratoriums as unconstitutional and void”.
So now you are Supervisor and you see the very moratorium you and Lisa Katz were clamoring for , that you were insulting about, that you were insisting be done – it turns out is impossible and against the law. Both you and Katz are lawyers. Maybe you should have researched the law a little better before you appeared at town board meeting yelling and screaming. Now you are doing exactly what you and she were so hotly contesting and ran your campaigns against.  I saw thru your hyperbole and Katz’s self serving NIMBY agenda. But now the law comes into play and it appears there will be retail at CC. Funny how the law got in the way of the lawyers.

By Resident on 03/21/2014 at 11:53 am

Mr Greenstein - Ms Katz- the laws against zoning moratoriums that are accurately articulated above are not new. As correctly pointed out by Greenstein,zoning moratoriums tend to have adverse economic consequences , tend to be struck down by the courts and are often unconstitutional and void. This is nothing new and these laws were in full effect during your campaign for office. Yet you both regularly implored Carpenter and the previous town board to halt all discussions with the developer of CC until the master plan was revised. In effect and in actuality you insisted that the town board call a moratorium. But wait…as you just said moratoriums are illegal.

You are both lawyers. Brodsky is a lawyer. Shouldn’t you all know the law? Looking back you embarrassed yourselves imploring and insulting the previous town board for not endorsing a moratorium we now know would have been illegal and unconstitutional. Maybe Carpenter & Co knew what they were doing after all. Either way you all are doing exactly what she did only you are reneging on your promises. You also expose the fact that as lawyers- you didn’t seem to understand the law.
You should request a refund from your law schools and we should request a do over on the election.

By Is there a lawyer in the house? on 03/21/2014 at 1:08 pm

Mr Greenstein – you are totally confusing the issue and AGAIN speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You state that the “loudest calls for adopting a moratorium ...” are coming from opposed to the Spa at New castle project. As you admit, that is what you did with retail at CC. You then go on to enlighten us on the specifics of a zoning moratorium and how ineffective, controversial and “unconstitutional” it is. In reality, zoning moratoriums are harmful, don’t work and are likely illegal and unconstitutional.

Then you admit – “There was a time, roughly one year ago, when I advocated for the adoption of a zoning moratorium while the prior town board was studying the environmental impacts associated with the retail zoning proposal for Chappaqua Crossing”.

What you are saying is, as candidate for supervisor you opposed moving ahead (moratorium) until the master plan was updated BUT now that you are the Supervisor we must move ahead because moratoriums cant work. You either knew this and were patently dishonest when running for office. OR you just recently learned the law.  I am not sure which is worse – dishonesty or ignorance????

Back then you opposed any zoning change that would allow development at CC (Ms Katz too) but now you think smart planning can shape the future of CC…duh! Back then you shouted “no zoning change” SG bought commercial property and we should not bail them out. Now you are supervisor and you admit what most where saying that we must “enhance our commercial tax base”/ duh!

It looks to many of us that Ms Carpenter and her board have set the table for you to take credit for a Whole Foods and smartly planned retail at CC. Looks like she set the table in allowing New Castle to enhance our commercial tax base.
All your nastiness and here you are falling into line and behaving and doing exactly what you campaigned against. Where are all the CC NIMBYs now? Team New castle just turned on you guys.

By C'mon man on 03/21/2014 at 3:30 pm

Mr Greenstein – you are totally confusing the issue and AGAIN speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You state that the “loudest calls for adopting a moratorium ...” are coming from opposed to the Spa at New castle project. As you admit, that is what you did with retail at CC. You then go on to enlighten us on the specifics of a zoning moratorium and how ineffective, controversial and “unconstitutional” it is. In reality, zoning moratoriums are harmful, don’t work and are likely illegal and unconstitutional.

Then you admit – “There was a time, roughly one year ago, when I advocated for the adoption of a zoning moratorium while the prior town board was studying the environmental impacts associated with the retail zoning proposal for Chappaqua Crossing”.

What you are saying is, as candidate for supervisor you opposed moving ahead (moratorium) until the master plan was updated BUT now that you are the Supervisor we must move ahead because moratoriums cant work. You either knew this and were patently dishonest when running for office. OR you just recently learned the law.  I am not sure which is worse – dishonesty or ignorance????

Back then you opposed any zoning change that would allow development at CC (Ms Katz too) but now you think smart planning can shape the future of CC…duh! Back then you shouted “no zoning change” SG bought commercial property and we should not bail them out. Now you are supervisor and you admit what most where saying that we must “enhance our commercial tax base”/ duh!

It looks to many of us that Ms Carpenter and her board have set the table for you to take credit for a Whole Foods and smartly planned retail at CC. Looks like she set the table in allowing New Castle to enhance our commercial tax base.

All your nastiness and here you are falling into line and behaving and doing exactly what you campaigned against. Where are all the CC NIMBYs now? Team New castle just turned on you guys.

By C'mon man on 03/21/2014 at 3:47 pm

From February 1, 2013, New Castle Now:

“There are too many unanswered questions.  Rather than negotiating the size and types of retail stores at Chappaqua Crossing behind closed doors, the Town Board owes it to our community to issue a moratorium on new zoning ordinances until the Master Plan is updated.”

- Rob Greenstein

By says it all on 03/21/2014 at 4:37 pm

Again I ask, where are all the Team New Castle supporters? Where are all the NIMBY voters that elected these owns? Where are there comments? Not a single comment , anonymous or otherwise in support of this trio of scoundrels and hypocrites.

By Roger on 03/21/2014 at 6:00 pm

Great comment by Is there a Lawyer in The House! Greenstein is a ” slip and fall” lawyer. That is what it says on his website. Katz does patient advocate, estate and trust law. As was said many times by many people in these comments section, they have no commercial real estate or municipal law experience. And they had no town government experience. Their ignorance is now showing. Greenstein calls for a moratorium last year and now that he is in office he realizes that what he called for then was not practical and was probably illegal. Katz only wanted to stop retail at CC. How’s that going for you Lisa?
Brodsky is a real estate lawyer which probably explained why he stayed out of the “moratorium” suggestions. He cares about his property downtown. That’s his connection to development. Even Chuck Napoli implored our last town board to ” wait” until the master plan is updated. Of course he only meant that the moratorium apply to CC and not his downtown development.

By Chapp mom on 03/21/2014 at 6:11 pm

We should have known better.

By let's admit it on 03/21/2014 at 7:06 pm

Just enforce the zoning codes.  You don’t need a moratorium.  The town zoning laws that are on the books now do not allow for the Spa hotel on that property.

By Don't need a moratorium on 03/21/2014 at 7:58 pm

Finally, momentum is for the CC go ahead. Remember Rob, the town poll was equally pro and con on the issue. Now that you have tailored it, the tipping point in favor has been surpassed. The silent majority supports you. Don’t be intimidated by loud, NIMBY selfishness. Go with quiet, measured progress.

By I luv his lies on 03/21/2014 at 8:56 pm

You are correct, and I am glad for his forward movement. I am chortling over his politics of reversal. He campaigned on a platform that 1 + 1=3, all the time knowing that he would come out for 1+1=2
when the obstructionists could do nothing more about it. I LUV IT. You all asked for it and you got it. I LUV IT

By Dear C'mon on 03/21/2014 at 9:00 pm

Stopping conifer earns Rob credibility points. lets see what develops at CC (pardon the pun)

By he stopped conifer on 03/21/2014 at 9:07 pm

Yep. Says it all:

“There are too many unanswered questions.  Rather than negotiating the size and types of retail stores at Chappaqua Crossing behind closed doors, the Town Board owes it to our community to issue a moratorium on new zoning ordinances until the Master Plan is updated.”

- Rob Greenstein (HYPOCRITE)

By Sorry I voted for Team Greenstein on 03/21/2014 at 10:26 pm

Excellent…Now we’re looking at a fourth commercial zone.  How about standing by your word for once?

By Concerned citizen on 03/21/2014 at 11:05 pm

Its soo sad that we let them fool us.  We should have know better. Who would have thought they would develop without the MastervPlan. I feel so dumb for voting for them. I’m ashamed.

By Team Liars on 03/22/2014 at 12:45 am

As much as I am not in favor of Conifer, Greenstein has not stopped it!  Do you have information the rest of the Town doesn’t?  Seems to me the credit goes to Bill Spade and his group if Conifer is stopped.

By are you sure? on 03/22/2014 at 12:48 am

You will do your shopping at CC when it finally comes to pass. You will enjoy the convenience,lowered tax bills and the low income housing obligation fulfillment. Yes He tricked you, but in the end it was for your own good.

The question now is, what will be built at town hall. I suggest converting it to a new recreation center and demolish the old one, to make another entrance to the parking area. THAT convenience will give the downtown a boost.

By Dear Sorry on 03/22/2014 at 4:29 am

I hate to say I told you all so, but I told you so repeatedly during the election campaign. The naïve, silly residents bought into his “passion” line. They threw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater. I am glad that you see it now.

That being said, the majority of people want the development (supermarket, etc, Armonk Square model). That is, the prior poll 50% amount with the additional support of the mollified people who go along with the non-strip mall design. The strident NIMBYS and “no progress under any circumstance” obstructionist are the vocal minority who will NEVER change their tune. Rob sees that and he is running with it. GOOD for us!

By Dear chap mom on 03/22/2014 at 4:42 am

@ Dear Sorry,

No, our taxes will NOT GO DOWN.  Another lie. I will not be shopping at CC.  Your arrogance is astounding, akin to Greenstein’s.

By @ Dear Sorry on 03/22/2014 at 2:16 pm

If people don’t tell the truth, how can you ever trust them?

By bottom line on 03/22/2014 at 3:14 pm

Well, rob at least stopped the funding, which is something. I am not a fan of his, but I, not like most, am not a hypocrite. He deserves some credit, give to him. As to his other claimed “whiplash attorney” lies, who knows. He has a baptism of fire, that he fought for in the extreme.

By stop conifer on 03/22/2014 at 3:28 pm

you will be first on line to get a sale price at whole foods. You will shop there because you will see the wisdom of it., eventually.

Are you the same person who refused to shop at Mrs. Greens because of the strike? and drove 45 minutes each way to gratify the “pay living wage” belief to be able to over pay for groceries?

By dear sorry on 03/22/2014 at 4:34 pm

At a minimum, the tax reductions to the developer will end, which, in and of itself is a tax benefit to us all. You are free to reject that savings.

By Taxes will benefit on 03/22/2014 at 4:37 pm

Look what you NIMBYs did. You were so determined to stop development and retail at CC “in your backyard” that you supported and voted in Greenstein and Team New Castle. You were warned but you didn’t care. You were warned that thes 3 had ZERO experience in governemt and NEVER held elected or appointed positions ( Greenstein appointed himself king of chamber of commerce). You were warned of Brodksy commitment to downtown development , Katz’s myopic and only focus on stopping retail at CC and Greensteins commitment to Napoli. We all saw their behavior and their stop at nothing, run over anybody, and insult anybody behavior. They insulted and trampled the prior town board and attacked a great citizen and dedicated employee(Penny).
Now they are in office. The very same things they accused Carpenter& co of doing they themselves are doing. Secret negotions ( no transparency), developments moving forward before the master plan is updated, hand picking committees, and total lack of decorum and organization.
THEY have decided that town hall should move to CC without any resident survey or feedback. They have determined retail and residential should replace town hall.
The sweet irony here is not only will retail surely be coming to CC ( your backyards) but so will town hall with all its employees and nighttime meetings and court schedule and police cars. You hurt yourselves and as you were warned you hurt us all. These 3 were voted in because of your support and we all suffe- even you.

By NIMBY not! on 03/22/2014 at 6:16 pm

@ stop conifer,

There were many people who worked to stop Conifer.  When he deserves credit, I will be happy to give it to him.  For now I am ducking all the friends and neighbors who voted for him on my recommendation. I am embarrassed.

By embarrassed on 03/22/2014 at 6:29 pm

The funding is on hold.  It has not been stopped yet!  They are waiting for the State’s decision.

By not yet on 03/22/2014 at 6:53 pm

A point to be made is that the ongoing, escalating tax grievance process ends, as a practical matter, with development. As I understand it, stopping reductions and, hopefully adding back reductions is a substantial benefit to the town. I wont be drawn into the argument about net tax benefit of development.

This point is not part of the net tax benefit debate or analysis, which undermines that branch of the “no-development-under-any-circumstance” argument against progress

By Taxes on 03/22/2014 at 7:09 pm

Mr. Greenstein,

Didn’t you run on a completely DIFERENT platform??? How can we possibly trust anything you say?

By SAY WHAT???? on 03/23/2014 at 8:34 am

YEs Conifer is only temporarily stopped, I stand grammatically corrected. But that is a good thing. The onus is now on the developer with the focus on the neutral points of safety and scaling back the size of the project. A halved project does the trick. It keeps the project where it belongs and eliminates the boondoggle aspect of it. Greenstein did take the proper action.

NIMBY not! and “embarrassed” are both absolutely correct. But embarrassed is the enabler. I was also screaming against Rob’s wind, “passion” and inexperience. Rob governs by internet. He is incompetent in the extreme

By A few things. on 03/23/2014 at 8:39 am

I hope that others take your point, namely that stopping tax losses, that is, eliminating a negative, is a positive. Therefore, the “@dear sorry or sorry” person is incorrect.

The obstructionist “no tax saving at all” argument is thereby wholly debunked.

By Dear Taxes on 03/23/2014 at 8:47 am

Taxes,

No one is arguing against “no-development-under-any-circumstances.’  Your hyperbole
renders your comments fallacious and therefor irrelevant .

By dear Taxes on 03/23/2014 at 9:33 am

CC development will economically stimulate the “greater” town, whether or not the NIMBYS and “No change” people like it. The schools have the excess capacity to absorb the projected increase in the student population. The new residents will patronize the retail and the rest of us will too.

Why is it that Millwood works and downtown doesn’t? Could it be easy parking and a supermarket, pretense free? CC will also work.

Yes the downtown area is the problem. It doesn’t work, I am very sad to say. I have lived here 35 years and will not patronize any of the stores except Susan Lawrence. But that is just me. The “shop local” campaign was a silly thing to spend time on. Yes it is what is desired but people vote with their cars.

Tear down the old recreation center to make a entrance to the parking lot (which is hidden and inconvenient to enter). Make the old town hall the new rec center….if it is feasible to do so, but I am not the expert for that. And, most importantly, do what has to be done to lower merchant rents. Rental losses and vacancies are the only things that the landlords understand. I am a landlord and are with them in spirit and pocketbook. that being said, they must dealt with like a donkey that refuses to move…..hit it on the head with a baseball bat to get its attention, then, it moves!

By rob gets it on 03/23/2014 at 10:09 am

Tear down the old recreation center to make a entrance to the parking lot (which is hidden and inconvenient to enter). Make the old town hall the new rec center….if it is feasible to do so, but I am not the expert for that. And, most importantly, do what has to be done to lower merchant rents. Rental losses and vacancies are the only things that the landlords understand. I am a landlord and are with them in spirit and pocketbook. that being said, they must dealt with like a donkey that refuses to move…..hit it on the head with a baseball bat to get its attention, then, it moves! CC development will economically stimulate the “greater” town, whether or not the NIMBYS and “No change” people like it. The schools have the excess capacity to absorb the projected increase in the student population. The new residents will patronize the retail and the rest of us will too.

Why is it that Millwood works and downtown doesn’t? Could it be easy parking and a supermarket, pretense free? CC will also work.

Yes the downtown area is the problem. It doesn’t work, I am very sad to say. I have lived here 35 years and will not patronize any of the stores except Susan Lawrence. But that is just me. The “shop local” campaign was a silly thing to spend time on. Yes it is what is desired but people vote with their cars.

By rob is not entirely wrong on 03/23/2014 at 12:10 pm

Preventing lowering of future taxes and clawing back some of the past reductions works for me

By Get CC to pay more on 03/23/2014 at 5:45 pm

Get your facts straight…. Chairman Greenstein had nothing to do with the funding being stopped that was all due to Bill Spade and Michael Kaplowitz our county legislator.  Furthermore I find it crazy that Team (just elect us)New Castle that ran on Master Planning before anything would proud to say that they are helping the Spa… Where is all the planning that they talked about.  I also find is sad they Ms Katz has nothing to say about anything but Xing and Brodsky has hidden himself since he realized he has a huge conflict of interest with any development goings on in town

By Funding on 03/23/2014 at 6:51 pm

Dear Dear Taxes,

Your “obstructionist ” conclusion is without merit and incorrect.

By not so on 03/23/2014 at 11:00 pm

Well, at least Rob spoke to the county legislature, on the record, and made the correct pitch. Yes, the Kaplowitz vote was the tipping point against it. But Still, give him the a little credit, just a little. That being said, circulate a recall petition or support him, there is no other choice.

By Dear Funding on 03/24/2014 at 8:44 am

Please refer to all the comments that said: “no, no, no” and the heated debate during the election.
There was that daily posting person who said eating her Walgreen cereal and milk were just as good as having a Whole Foods. She was supported as the “Truth Giver” by the NIMBYS and people who fear the change in their way of life. Those “no, no , no ” people are now muted, but they still feel the same way. They are quieter now because their stale drones now fall on deaf ears. Their expected ally, Rob, has turned on them (which I am glad he did).

By dear taxes people still oppose on 03/24/2014 at 8:54 am

I agree that ending certiorari proceedings ends the tax losses to us. It is my understanding that these things are negotiable.

Negotiate CC to drop the cases in exchange for the now, certain to occur, retail development….so long as it cannot be seen from the road and it is not a strip mall

By Yes more tax dollars for us on 03/24/2014 at 8:58 am

Like it or not, Greenstein doesn’t have the cards he wants on CC. You call him a hypocrite for changing his tune on a moratorium, but he states clearly that the time for a moratorium has passed. The previous board completed its (ridiculously favorable) SEQRA analysis. That is a matter of law. And, the spa development does not rise to the same level in terms of town-wide impact (sorry, spa neighbors).

We did not just vote for Greenstein. We voted for a more dynamic TB that includes elected officials from a variety of backgrounds and affiliations (vs. one single affiliation…New Castle Democrats). Yes, we have more dirty laundry on display. You can choose to be embarrassed by that; or, you can choose to be happy to have a clear view into a TB that is genuinely trying to work through these difficult issues.

By Area Man on 03/24/2014 at 10:37 am

Had a friend at work look at this page.  Her best guess (she is an english teacher and we are finishing up a free period) is that all the letters above were by 2 or 3 people. 

I saw the tape of the two meeting where Greenstein spoke to the county legislators against the project and where Carpenter spoke in favor of it. he showed up before he was even sworn in.  People may not like Rob’s style, but i will never be confused that he isn’t a big improvement over the past 20 years of bull*** gov’t.

By 2 or 3 on 03/24/2014 at 1:09 pm

2 or 3, I sure hope my kid does not have your English teacher. Because that person is very wrong.  People don’t like this new crew.  They are voicing their opinions, which is their right to do.  That is so lame.

By you have got to be kidding on 03/24/2014 at 5:02 pm

Letting every one voice opinions gets all pros and cons out on the table. That is a good thing.  I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would say about governing by Internet.  Lol

By Lameness forever on 03/24/2014 at 8:29 pm

So, I guess I am the only one to actually use my name here. There are merits to both sides. Sure, Rob and company didn’t even think, or, perhaps, even know, about all of the legal issues until they took office - and you’re right, their condemnation of the previous Town Board for the same issues that they are now defending is perplexing and, well, just weird. However, in other areas, they have provided a breath of fresh air and, to a limited degree, openness (not so sure about the appointment process for special committees).  Let’s focus on the topic at hand, rather than laying blame, etc. Elections are a couple of years away, so let’s join together and get something done (or undone, as the case may be). If both the previous and the current Town Board agree on an issue, proceed, and let’s move forward. The time for casting aspersions is not now, but rather during the election cycle. This fighting and name-calling is irritating and puerile.

By Cynthia Metcalf on 03/25/2014 at 2:43 am

So What?
The issue is: are the points being made valid? Not whether it is a matter of high school English.

Rob is governing by internet, trying to get people to like him. Unfortunately, he defined himself by his campaign behavior and platform. He must take everything that is dished out.

    Everyone and anyone is similarly entitled to use the same internet the way he does and they are entitled to anonymity to protect themselves from his power and caprice.

By Dear 2 or 3 on 03/25/2014 at 3:31 am

To Area Man- the time for a moratorium passed? Really? According to Greenstein himself in this letter moratoriums do NOT work. He correctly points out that moratoriums are ineffective, illegal, and unconstitutional. Past attempts have led to lawsuits and penalties. So there NEVER was time for a moratorium.
You said you voted for a dynamic new town board from a wide variety of backgrounds and affiliations. Really? Team New Castlle are all lawyers. What diversity there? They ran on a Republican ticket but Greenstein/ Katz are registered Democrats.
Lastly, you say they are “genuinely” trying to work through these difficult issues. There is NOTHING genuine about these 3.

By RM on 03/25/2014 at 7:07 am

Even nay sayers had a valid point or two, although they have been vetted and debunked. The anonymous supporters should themselves be supported. They also have made valid points. The issues are close, but, at this point in time, they favor development.

Staying anonymous keeps people friendly. Talking about CC is like talking religion and politics. But, cc must be talked about. Doing it anonymously helps the decision makers see the town’s true feelings and is an additional collective “head” when it comes to ideas, which ideas, of course, can be accepted or not.

By Now we have Education NIMBYS? on 03/25/2014 at 10:07 am

You mean fewer impacts on YOUR area.  The SPA development is significantly bigger than the proposed retail at CC, is in a 2 acre residential area instead of in a commercial area, and is in an area with no sewers as opposed the fully sewered CC site.  Just because its not in Your area doesn’t mean it doesn’t have serious impacts.  Frankly- the CC development doesn’t impact my side of town at all- your neighborhood is not all their is to the town.

By to area man on 03/25/2014 at 10:46 am

@ 2 or 3- your English teacher friend must be a big Greenstein supporter. You and she sound a bunch like he did when he accused all of us that opposed and challenged him of being the same 1 or 2 people using anonymous names. Or we were a few who worked for Summit Greenfield. It’s a shame you folks didn’t listen to us folks.
There are 44 comments on this post as I write this and you think they are from 2 or 3 people. I think the expression is ” your in denial”.

By Try 30 or 40 on 03/25/2014 at 11:33 am

The English teacher is clearly an outside, uninvolved person…..but…she is obviously influenced by her very good friend and Bronx co-worker: 2 or 3

By English teacher friend seems neutral on 03/25/2014 at 8:43 pm

Really?

By Forensics in English? on 03/26/2014 at 11:18 am

It feels like Greenstein is wheeling and dealing with various development issues in his spare time. The likelihood is that he (or any other part time amateur) is not smart enough to out think full time professional developers—and developers will get the better of the town.

By Supervisor is playing with fire on 03/26/2014 at 1:28 pm

unfortunately you may be correct. He IS an amateur

By dear playing with fire on 03/26/2014 at 3:06 pm

@ playing with fire,

Greenstein thinks that as long as he is cursing and joking with the developers, we will be fine.

Hey, what’s to worry ?

By playing with fire is right ! on 03/26/2014 at 5:32 pm

again your are frighteningly correct

By no worries?...hell yes on 03/26/2014 at 8:41 pm

Good point! I too am interested in hearing from the Greenstein- Team New Castle cheering section. You know, those people that ignored his boorish behavior, ignored their despicable tactics, ignored their lack of experience, and ignored their very clear personal agendas. Where is bob? Where is BoB? Where is Ed a Frank? Bresner?
David Gladstone is the only person that had the courage to call Greenstein out recently having been a Team New Castle supporter.

By Where's Waldo on 03/28/2014 at 7:31 am

Right on. The hypocritical, silly, fantasy dreamers in the town got what they fought for. They deserve being tricked and fooled by Rob. That being said, I am glad and support his efforts to ram CC through.

By dear waldo on 03/28/2014 at 1:58 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.