Tensions surface over survey and funding, supervisor resigns his Master Plan hat

Tiffany Zezula preparing committee members for May Master Plan outreach sessions; video of the meeting is embedded below
April 25, 2014
by Christine Yeres

Last Tuesday, Supervisor Rob Greenstein went from a Master Plan meeting directly to a work session where he updated Town Board members on the progress of the Master Plan review.  During his update, Deputy Supervisor Lisa Katz began a line of questioning that led to an outright shouting match between Greenstein and a member of the Master Plan subcommittee he heads on “commercial development and hamlets.” It ended in his agreeing to let his place on the five-member Steering Committee be filled by someone else whom the Board will appoint.  The next day, he emailed his group to announce that he would leave.  The subject box read, “I’m done.”

How it started

Greenstein had come to the Town Board work session straight from a Master Plan Steering Committee meeting focused on the community outreach that begins in May [a video of the two-hour session is embedded below].  During his update on the Master Plan review for Town Board members, Board members Lisa Katz and Elise Mottel first pressed Greenstein to assure them that Town Board members would see in advance the questions to be used in the May outreach sessions Pace consultants will conduct. [The questions, all very general “conversation starters,” are below.]

But when Betty Weitz, a member of Greenstein’s subcommittee on commercial development, pointed out what she believed was a conflict between Greenstein’s determination to promote grocery-retail zoning at Chappaqua Crossing and his responsibility to a Steering Committee on the point of inviting the community to brainstorm about the town’s future in the most general terms—on whatever subject residents want—the two argued for a full 20 minutes. 

After ten minutes, Greenstein moved to go into executive session, but when no Board member seconded the motion he and Weitz tangled for another ten.

Greenstein pointed out that he held his position on the committee mainly by default.  The former supervisor, he said, had been part of the Steering Committee and he had simply stepped into her place—and only after he had tried to interest every other Town Board member in taking the spot.  He had stepped up and filled the spot, he said, because he believed the Master Plan review ought to get started—and it has.

That Greenstein is not only supervisor, but an energetic proponent of a development plan that assumes approval of as much as 120,000 square feet of retail development at Chappaqua Crossing—plus the move of town hall to its cupola building—has produced discomfort not only among some of his subcommittee members, but also among his four other Steering Committee members.  The ongoing uneasiness over the dual role he plays surfaced in a meeting of the Master Plan Steering Committee meeting with Pace in the two hours just before the work session. 

Weitz had first brought up this discomfort publicly in a meeting with Pace consultant on the Master Plan outreach, Tiffany Zezula. Weitz described the mixed messages she felt were coming from Pace consultants to the Steering Committee on one hand, and from Greenstein to his subcommittee on the other.  Weitz read portions of emails from Greenstein to subcommittee members pressing them to accept grocery-retail zoning at Chappaqua Crossing as a given, and to undertake any master planning around that central fact. [See Op-Ed: Pace runs one Master Plan process while Greenstein runs another, NCNOW.org, 4/4/14.]

Pace model for community outreach will remain general, get specific later

Meanwhile, Zezula has been on a course to conduct four community outreach sessions in May—some daytime, some evening—at four different schools around town.  In the broadest terms, facilitators will ask residents what they like about the town, what they don’t like, what works, what doesn’t, and take notes throughout. She explained the process to Steering Committee members in preparing them for the May outreach.  Facilitators will ask:

What’s good now?
  What do you like?
  What should be maintained?

What’s not working?
  What do you dislike?
  What needs to be changed?

What are the strategies to overcome what is not working?
  What new things can we do to make it better?
  What opportunities are there?
  Where can we make these opportunities happen?

Afterwards, Pace will compile the input gleaned from residents and produce a report for the Steering Committee.

“If we give people the solutions to their problems,” Zezula told Master Plan Steering Committee members, ”—if we give them what we think is right—we are going to create a bad relationship with people.  When we create a win-lose dynamic, we’re not building trust.  And I really think that with all community engagement efforts and with all types of municipal actions we’re trying to build trust in a relationship with the larger general public. And I want that for your group and your community as well.”

Zezula has never deviated from this approach for the Master Plan outreach, and has counseled Steering Committee members to remain in listener mode within their subcommittees as well as during the community outreach sessions.  But Greenstein, according to several of his group members, including Weitz,  has pointedly steered them toward generating solutions that match his own development plans for Chappaqua Crossing and downtown Chappaqua. 

Greenstein has explained this tendency as simply “being transparent”—because he believes, for example, that the fate of Chappaqua Crossing is already determined to a certain extent by the previous Town Board’s environmental review of it and by lawsuits that may resume if approval is not granted.  In his mind, he was simply pushing the members of his “commercial development and hamlets” committee in the direction of Reality.

Pushback from the Master Plan Steering Committee

Some pushback from his four fellow Master Plan Steering Committee members on Tuesday afternoon may have caused Greenstein to understand better what the Master Plan review process is about. 

Bob Kirkwood, Dick Brownell, Hala Makowska and Maud Bailey seemed disturbed, for example, that Town Planner Sabrina Charney had prepared a survey without asking Steering Committee members for input, and was on the point of sending it out to residents.  To add insult to injury, when the four expressed interest in a more scientific survey—by a paid outside consultant—Greenstein stated flatly that the Town Board had no money for one—and little money for anything else Master Plan-related. 

Although Greenstein subsequently acknowledged during the meeting that the Master Plan effort was important enough that the Town Board would surely come up with funds for one, as Weitz pointed out in the work session that followed, she believed his Supervisor-self had intruded on the Master Plan Steering Committee’s ability to decide—and get—what resources it needs to conduct a Master Plan review. 

Money for the Master Plan review

In fact the Town Board did come up with the $15,000 to engage Pace to conduct the outreach.  But Steering Committee members have been reminded from their early meetings last year to the present that the Master Plan review must remain on a shoestring.

Town Board members regularly wring their hands budget expenditures, but February the town’s comptroller Rob Deary presented them with a fairly rosy picture, due to increased mortgage taxes collected by the town because of a rise in house sales.  Deary explained to NCNOW that funds can always be found for the Master Plan review if the Town Board directs him to do so. “Give me a budget,” said Deary.  “If it’s $10,000 they need, it’s easier to move money around and find it.  If it’s $50,000, then we need to get more creative.  And if it’s $125,000, then the Board has to make a decision on where to get that from.  When they come to me we’ll sit down and figure out a way to get it done.”  [See In work session with comptroller, Town Board discusses town hall move, money, and Master Plan, NCNOW.org, 2/11/14.]

Feeling their way forward

It seems as though the members of all these groups—Town Board, Master Plan Steering Committee, the subcommittees—are feeling their way towards an understanding of what a Master Plan is, why updating it matters, what their respective roles are, how to fund it and how to get residents to come to the outreach sessions for brainstorming next month.


The town’s Master Plan review

The community outreach meetings are scheduled for:

Wednesday, May 7 at Bell Middle School 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.

Saturday, May 10 at Horace Greeley High School 9:00 a.m. to noon

Thursday, May 15 at Westorchard Elementary 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.

Wednesday, May 21 at Seven Bridges Middle School 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.


Town of New Castle Master Plan Steering Committee 4/22/14 from New Castle Media Center on Vimeo.


For NCNOW’s archived articles on the Master Plan, visit our Master Plan page.

On four days in May, tell us about the future of Your New Castle, NCNOW.org, 4/25/14

In TB work session, argument breaks out over Greenstein’s place on Master Plan steering group, NCNOW.org, 4/25/14

Master Plan and Chappaqua Crossing: An update from Supervisor Rob Greenstein, NCNOW.org, 4/25/14


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

What is the purpose of the master plan committee if those participating have already decided they are for or against development at CC? Greenstein is pushed our because he is for development by those opposed to development. So if what we have left are a committee of these opposes the town is not best served because the process is unduly influenced by one side. I watched the meetings- the bickering and fighting are embarrassing. Each and every person that spoke and shouted at each other had clear and visible agendas – for or against. There is no integrity to this process. It’s all a charade and either way it will be 12-18 months before the master plan is complete. We can’t sit that long can’t continue to stall the developers. Decision must be made soon – not a year from now. These hearings and committees are just opportunities for people to line up against each other. These opposed to retail at CC or development at Legionairs will not budge and no committee , survey, or discussion will change them. So why bother. Even if they prevail in asserting their position, that does not negate the legal responsibility and liability our town faces if we continue to block development.
Keep holding these silly public hearings but keep moving forward with retail at CC

By RK on 04/26/2014 at 7:52 am

Really Christine!?!?!  I am “an energetic proponent of a development plan that assumes approval of as much as 120,000 square feet of retail development at Chappaqua Crossing”.  This is one of your more ridiculous assertions.  It is not worthy of a response.

Also, your assertion that “that Town Planner Sabrina Charney had prepared a survey without asking Steering Committee members for input, and was on the point of sending it out to residents” is so patently false that it is offensive.  It was absolutely sent to Steering Committee members and it was not even remotely close to being sent to residents. 

Christine, as a reporter, you have a resposibity to check the facts before you print things. 

Editor’s Note:  If not “energetic,” then “tireless”? And I would say “both.”

Rob, you and I were both at the Steering Committee meeting.  It was evident that members of the committee had not had anything to do with the survey that was poised to be sent out, according to Sabrina Charney, in the town’s storm-water mailing next Friday, May 2 (she told me). I was wrong to assume that Sabrina had composed it, but in the meeting, the origins of the survey were very confused.  First Tiffany and Sabrina said there was not one [Betty Weitz asked: Is it written? They answered: No. She asked again: Is it written? And Tiffany asked What do you mean by “written”?—is how the dialogue went], then that it was only a draft—

I’ve just located it in the tape at 1 hour 15 minutes—have a listen.

Then Tiffany said “I drafted it.” 

Then, later in the meeting Tiffany explained that the survey was a sort of amalgam from surveys taken used in other communities.  She said she understood that there were cost constraints on our Master Plan review and that there would be no opportunity (money) for a second mailing—it had to go out with the storm-water mailing.  Maud Bailey said, in a general hub-bub of the group moving to a table, “No one has had any input into this document.”  Tiffany told committee members that the survey she drafted was meant (considering the time and cost pressures) “to raise people’s ideas and curiosity.” To that Maud Bailey said “It wasn’t presented like that. It was ‘this is going to go out’—in the storm-water mailing (which Sabrina confirmed to me). 

So not “patently false,” Rob.  I was mistaken only about the composer of the survey. When questioned directly, neither Sabrina nor Tiffany took ownership of it.  Only when pressed did Tiffany explain that it was a composite provided by her (to Sabrina, perhaps, since no one else had seen it yet it was slated for mailing.  If Sabrina did not approve of the mailing, who did?  You? Jill Shapiro?)  No Steering Committee members had input into it (unless you did—did you?), and it was scheduled to go out Friday, May 2 with the town’s one big post-office mailing, in order to save on postage, Rob. 

On the other hand, what might seem patently impossible is this: Once Sabrina and Tiffany allowed discussion of the survey according to their agenda—Sabrina began by saying (as though it had been the plan all along) that there would be no survey going out before Steering Committee members had seen it, shared it with their groups, and approved of its content.  I supposed all that could have been accomplished—sending out to group members, approving content, printing, and mailing—by May 2, but I doubt it.

By Rob Greenstein on 04/26/2014 at 8:08 am

I see no use in participating in a process where the town Supervisor has hammered home what HIS vision is for New Castle over and over again and the board has final say.  Sorry to say, it’s a done deal folks.

By the sad truth on 04/26/2014 at 8:57 am

Shoot me now. You people are truly ridiculous. Nothing is going to happen in this town. Lets go back to court and have the court direct that cc proceed.

By Oy vey on 04/26/2014 at 9:37 am

Isn’t it somewhat funny that Chapin warned Greenstein at a board meeting about 2 months ago that board members and committees don’t mix.  And Greenstein didn’t listen.  And Mottel and Chapin both questioned Greenstein’s naming of committee members without input.  And Greenstein didn’t listen.  See a pattern developing?

The bull-in-a china shop approach to governance isn’t working.

By no bull on 04/26/2014 at 10:26 am

Betty Weitz has been a disrupting influence at every single steering committee meeting.  She is using this process to try to stop all development in New Castle.  Her intent is as clear as day.  Shame on her.

By Shame on 04/26/2014 at 10:26 am

Dear Editor. – I have always been a big fan of your tireless and outstanding contribution to our community through NewCastleNow. But you are beginning to cross the line here in that your questions and your personal opinions are clearly leaking through.
You have been honest in regularly reminding us that you live near CC so we can draw the logical conclusions regarding your personal feelings. That makes it difficult for you to be an objective journalist and editor. But you have generally done a masterful job of balancing the issues. Lately I see more of the NIMBY in you and less of the journalist. 
Thank you

By Resident on 04/26/2014 at 10:32 am

If the purpose of bringing in Pace is to get an unbiased and professional team involved , why should the committee made up of residents have final say on the questions in the survey? If the committee is slanted against retail at CC they will certainly try to write survey questions that influence the outcome they wish to see. Let Pace do its job and stop trying to influence them. That’s why we hired them

Editor’s Note:  The Steering Committee members were unhappy with it because it wasn’t a good survey, not because it wasn’t biased enough.  Survey questions aren’t supposed to be biased anyway.  And the questions for the community outreach are very general, broad questions, nothing biased.  Questions meant to draw impressions from people about how they think of the town and what they think it should be like going forward.

By Anonymous on 04/26/2014 at 10:35 am

What is happening in our town was captured in the movie “Waiting for Guffman”. A silly, B rated farce about a Midwestern town putting on a play. Everyone had her ideas about what to do. The director quit, then, returned. Eventually the performance occurred.

As to CC, “build it they will come” and shop, especially the NIMBYS.


By Not waiting for Godot on 04/26/2014 at 11:13 am

I “see” Christine ‘biting’ her lips and exercising restraint and impartiality. Its good that you remind her etc.. Nevertheless, I am a rabid CC supporter and she never fails to publish my posts unless I am over the top.

By Dear Anonymous on 04/26/2014 at 11:15 am

@ no bull

Did Chapin & Mottel warn Carpenter that board members and committees don’t mix when Carpenter was appointed to the Master Plan Steering Committee, without protest?  Wasn’t Mottel on her Downtown Steering Committee?  It may not be a good idea but let’s not pretend that it hasn’t been done before with their blessing & involvement.

By Can’t rewrite history on 04/26/2014 at 11:27 am

So Betty Weitz has a Ph.D in philosophy. Big deal. In the context of the town debate, it is a useless, if not a harmful credential. Our discussions and deliberations necessarily only concern practical, day to day living in the real world, not philosophizing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin by a theoretical educator.

Her personal wish list vision of a Utopian Chappaqua should be ignored in its entirety. Her voice as a resident, fine. As a leader, absolutely not. I feel that her expressed self importance, as an expert about what, practically should be in New Castle (per her writings)requires her recusal from any leadership position. To her credit, she does not try to hide her bias and anti-CC agenda. She is a partisan.

By Not a pontificator on 04/26/2014 at 11:31 am

Hey everyone. Watch “Portlandia” on IFC cable channel. That is us.
Our flakiness is more serious because it affects, or attempts to affect, people who are not flaky themselves.

I wish we could have flash forward scenes of the logical result of the wrong minded wishes of Ph.D’s, stay at homes, tenured, job protected, people of the town who don’t struggle to make a living.

By “Chappaqua-landia” on 04/26/2014 at 11:40 am

Is there a work group for studying the need for more mental health professionals in New Castle?  That seems to be our greatest need.

By Mental Health Work Group on 04/26/2014 at 12:20 pm

Are you saying that the steering committee knows more about surveys than Pace? This is what Pace does, this is why they were hired. To suggest a bunch of residents, most with a bias, knows more about surveys than the professionals is absurd.
Betty Weitz is clearly anti retail at CC and she is now going to influence the survey and it’s questions? What sense does that make. Greenstein stepped down because people felt he was pro CC – so Weitz should also step down because she is anti CC.
Or just let PACE do its job!!!!

Editor’s Note:  Pace does not conduct professional surveys.  It’s not part of their tool kit.  And what “residents, most with a bias” are you referring to?  The four remaining members of the Steering Committee?  It was they who asked about a professional survey.

By Dear editor on 04/26/2014 at 12:22 pm

I agree with Shame- Betty Weitz is clearly anti retail at CC. Her questions and comments on the steering committee confirm her position. If Greenstein stepped down because people felt he was pro retail at CC then Wetiz must do the same for her anti retail position.
This is why this entire exercise is a charade. Most importantly the courts will not accept this process as a valid reason to continue to deny the developer rights. Especially when SG will present these hearings as evidence of the bias involved.
We just had an election. We just elected this supervisor and once again this small outspoken selfish group continue to dominate and monopolize the discussion. There is much to be done. Many issues our supervisor and the board must address. Retail at CC is but one issue. Based on town board meetings, master plan committees and this blog one would think that the only thing going on in New Castle is CC
Enough already. Let’s move ahead and not be held hostage to this same group AGAIN.

By I agree on 04/26/2014 at 12:40 pm

Well, I guess I just haven’t been paying attention. This is the first time I’ve read that there’s a plan afoot to move the town hall offices to the iconic Reader’s Digest cupola building at Chappaqua Crossing. Is this a joke? I fear not.

I like the town hall offices right where they are—in nice, low budget, cramped facilities hard on the railroad tracks in the center of town. Let them move out to a cushy campus at Chappaqua Crossing in a cupola-topped Georgian Revival building on the crest of a hill—looking down on the hoi polloi like lords in their castle in a feudal society—and the Peter Principle will take over. They will expand to fill the available space and with their expansion our tax bills will soar. No thank you—and anyway I want every square foot of Chappaqua Crossing, whether office, residential or retail in nature, to be on the tax rolls.

By OldIra on 04/26/2014 at 1:25 pm

It is untrue that Betty Weitz is against development.  That is Rob’s meme and he has gotten his pals to repeat it.  Saying it over and over does not make it correct.  It is a lie. It is Rob and his minions who should be ashamed.

Rob is going around smearing Betty Weitz.  Rob is the problem.

Folks, this was posted under another article:

“Rob Greenstein, you published the e-mails on the Chappaqua Moms page, but with the following preface below. Why was that excluded here?”

“It is obviously unfortunate when a resident makes false accusations. Admittedly. it would be better for public relations purposes if that resident was not an older woman but facts matter.”

By Shame on Rob and his minions on 04/26/2014 at 1:39 pm


The survey would be for the whole town.  It would not be specific to CC development.
Rob has so muddied the waters with his lies that it is not surprising how much confusion and misinformation is floating around.

Take the time to watch these videos to understand the process.

By Go to the video – you’ll see on 04/26/2014 at 1:40 pm

Christine,  on April 10th, Sabrina sent an email to the entire Steering Committee attaching the DRAFT survey.  It said draft, and it was a draft. A few Steering Committee members commented on the survey.

On April 14th, Sabrina sent the following email to the entire Steering Committee.

Dear Steering Committee-
Regarding discussions that were being had on the survey, I was hoping to take advantage of a town-wide mailing and include a survey that mirrored the public outreach sessions which we will be holding in May.  A town-wide mailing runs approximately $4,000.00 for copy and postage and additional money for data input and analysis.  As you all know there is no budget at this time for the master plan update.  The outreach meetings to be held in May are general in nature to get people out and involved.  Tiffany will discuss this more on the 22nd, but the outcome of the public meetings will be the community thoughts on the various topics as well as some of their ideas to deal with some of the problems.  The survey that was circulated was a general survey used in other communities to get people talking and get them more importantly on notice for the public meetings.  It was intended to be goal oriented, and purposely was not to contain specific or leading questions.  The specificity that I think all of you are looking for is scheduled to come this fall- after the general public outreach is accomplished and after the work groups have examined the 1989 TDP in relation to the public outreach meeting conclusions and your work group work.  The fall round of public outreach will be to obtain feedback and get the public’s priorities on the steering committee’s work regarding goals, objectives and implementation strategies. We will use this time to ask any specific questions that are needed.  This is Master Planning. 


By Rob Greenstein on 04/26/2014 at 3:20 pm


If a general survey does move forward, I will need to have something ready to print by May 2nd, if we want to leverage the town-wide mailing that is being done. Obviously, this does not leave much time, as Tiffany and I are unavailable from April 25- April 30th. If it is decided that we move forward with a general survey, it may be possible to include a section which addresses specific questions related to “live applications” before the Town Board- I can think of one- Chappaqua Crossing.  Specifically, we could include questions related to moving Town Hall to the Cupola Building and repurposing the Town Hall property in Chappaqua.  Discussing things that are not yet pressing would be inappropriate to the Master Plan process, but we have an obligation to try and make headway with the reality we are dealing with. Again, this effort would give us an opportunity to get some quick feedback and gives us an opportunity to spread the word about coming out to the larger meetings.

We have a lot to discuss on the 22nd so if folks want to talk more about the survey, can people be available before or after our next Steering Committee meeting or another day?  I will try and make myself available as much as possible to make this work.

Please let me know your thoughts,

So, Christine, once again, your comment that Steering Committee members were not asked for input and the survey was on the point of sending it out to residents is 100% wrong.  Please check your facts – you owe it to your readers – you owe it to the community.

Editor’s Note:  Sorry, Rob, but this does not prove what you intend it to prove.  Members of the Steering Committee were

By Rob Greenstein on 04/26/2014 at 3:21 pm

Editor’s Note:  You’re benched.  To learn why, you may contact me at:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

By It’s obvious on 04/26/2014 at 4:21 pm

Yet just a little more than a hundred days in, I’m not sure if there is a campaign promise he hasn’t reneged on yet. 

His comment on Chappaqua Moms about Betty Weitz’s age is just more proof of his terrible judgement. 

Now that he’s stepped down off the Steering Committee, is there anything we can do to encourage him to step down as Supervisor?

By I voted for Rob on 04/26/2014 at 6:17 pm

After reading this article and watching the video I am convinced more than ever that this Master Plan update exercise is a waste of time and futile. I understand now why past boards didn’t try. The participants , or a least most of them, have strong personal views and agendas and it is because of those agendas they are partipating. Some sit quietly while others bicker, yell, and assert their views over others. Lisa Katz is not on the master planning committee or sub committee yet she tries to control direction and content. Greenstein has too much on his plate already and only participated because no other TB member stepped up – and he gets criticized for speaking his mind. So he steps down because he is viewed as pro development. Ironically those that suggested he step down are anti development. So I guess it’s ok to have an opinion as long as it agrees with the others.  But if it doesn’t you must resign. Chuck Napoli sits on a MP sub committee and he is a developer with a very advanced plan for downtown development. He has been before town boards for 2 years presenting and campaigning for his plan. What sense does that make. Maybe we should have a Summit Greenfield rep on the committee too. 
Betty Weitz, true to form , dominates and condescends every conversation. She is anti development and does not have an open mind that she insists everyone else should have. Her know it all attitude is tiresome.
In short- Greenstein is correct. In the end the town board must decide. This exercise is a waste of time a waste of money and an embarrassment. Greenstein just won an election. Let him govern.

By Resident on 04/27/2014 at 6:02 am

In all my years living here there has never been so much controversy over a Supervisor. It’s time for Rob to resign before he entirely ruins New Castle.

By Long Time Resident on 04/27/2014 at 6:35 am

Dear Editor – I must agree with Resident and others that have questioned your objectivity in this debate. You have been honest with us , reminding that you live in close proximity to CC. You have generally done an outstanding job being neutral as you wear your editors hat. But after watching the video and reading these comments in this debate on this topic you have put on your NIMBY hat.
In the many town board meetings that Supervisor Carpenter presided over and the many times steering committee was discuses under her tenure, did you ever ask her or suggest to her that she should step down from serving on the steering or master plan related matters? I know there was little Master Plan business under her stewardship but the steering committee was viable and active. Why did you go after Greenstein to resign his partipation but you didn’t insist Catpenter do the same?

Editor’s Note:  My pieces stand for themselves. Show me my NIMBY bias, other than by pointing out that I live in the neighborhood of Chappaqua Crossing.  If you haven’t gathered from reading NCNOW that I’m genuinely interested in possible solutions for the CC property—and have covered them assiduously—then I invite you to email me

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

and we’ll compare lenses to see what, about your lens, makes you think my lens is NIMBY-flawed.  How much is your lens, for example, affected by your let’s-move-forward self and your taxed-too-high self?

The differences between Carpenter and Greenstein stand for themselves. I have been critical of both.  As to the Master Plan Steering Committee being “viable and active,” under Carpenter it was not.  It went nowhere for two years for reasons town government should examine.  I’ve watched it very closely.  And it’s being hobbled right now. Your “taxed-too-high” self may be pleased with this, but both boards (Carpenter’s and Greenstein’s) have set the Master Plan process up for failure by insisting that it be done “in-house” by the Town Planner and on the cheap (in a whittled down contract with Pace). 

If I seem more critical of it this year, under this administration, it’s because its increase in velocity has made its flaws more apparent—and has exposed some new ones.

By Taxed too high on 04/27/2014 at 6:37 am

To Rob Greenstein- it is the best thing that you resigned from this committee. After watching this debacle you should not be wasting your valuable time ( which translates into residents valuable time) on such nonsense. While important that you provided the understanding and insight of the inner workings of current negotions and legal exposure in regards to development, you need not get embroiled in this petty exercise of personal agendas. Your responsibilties and obligation to serve all the people and all of our issues supersedes this master plan charade. It has been said that the master plan revision process is about town wide issues and not just about development but after watching the video all the bickering and contentiousness is over development ( specifically CC). That is undeniable.  Katz is simply trying to save face with her neighbors and her comments and questions are not objective. Weitz continues her condescending and pontificating ways. You don’t need that. Let them embarrass themselves. A year from now when the master plan is revised we will all know who crafted it and how they did. It will be a guideline only. And it certainly won’t be objective. You and the town board will have the most impact and that is what you must focus on.
You wouldn’t know it from NewCastleNow articles lately but there are other issues facing our community – not just retail at CC. It is your responsibility to focus on all issues that effect all of us. This master plan with all its committees and sub committees has already been exposed as a joke. Best you pulled away. Deliver a well planned, well designed multi use complex at CC. Bring us a Whole Foods. Get SG to throw in some perks for the community. Get us increased tax revenues. Then you will be recognized as having accomplished something great for our community. Let these foolish people bicker and pontificate. You have work to do.

By Let’s move forward on 04/27/2014 at 7:07 am

The Master Plan review process has begun. In theory, this should be a valuable and productive town wide discussion resulting in some “plan” that will serve as a guideline for future town intiatives and development.
In reality, based on what i just read/watched, this process is already compromised-the results wil be worthless. In business school there was an expression – GIGO garbage in garbage out. That describes expected results.
I am fed up and fatigued by the regular dominating prescense of the small group appropriately named NIMBY (more broadly the anti all developement people). No town-no community can move forward ,modernize, and change if this type of activism dominates. For the better part of 5 years ( 8 total) the Chapp Crossing debate has been dominated by these people. Town meetings ran late because of them , their agenda dominated. Petitions circulated (one was dishonest), election campaigns dominated by them and their “cause”. Fear mongering and misrepresenting the facts were part of their tactics.
Now we embark on the long awaited and often mentioned “master plan” -the holy grail. Who is dominating the discussions and who is asserting and manipulating?yup – these same folks. The NIMBYs and the anti development of anything people.
I do not know Betty Weitz but her rambling and disrespect must stop. Why does she command such a place? Clearly she opposses developemnt so how can this be productive without objectivity? Napoli sits on a sub committee charged with commercial and commerce but he is a developer with a very specific downtown agenda! What? With all due respect to this wonderful hard working editor, she too has been challenged to be neutral in her questions, suggestiuons, and reporting.
Rob Greenstein-team new castle won the election. They must govern NOW. The master plan is 12-18 months away from completion and based on what is already going on it will be GIGO – garbage in garbage out.

By JK on 04/27/2014 at 8:09 am

A question as to mailing costs: many of us opt out of hard copy bank statements, Con Ed bills and other mailings by providing an email address. Why can’t we give New Castle residents the same option with respect to communications from the Town?  I think that many if not most residents would opt for email.

Most of my “real mail” is now delivered electronically, and even some types of legal notices may now be delivered electronically.  Scanning and emailing the survey and other materials would be cheap, and might reach more residents.

By Rita Tobin on 04/27/2014 at 8:10 am

There is only 1 person who can get away with rambling for 20 minutes at a town board meeting and screaming at our Supervisor – and that person is Betty Weitz.  Rob showed incredible restraint.

She has also been a disrutive influence at the Steering Committee meetings.  Ask School Board members about the rantings of Betty Weitz.  Ask Commercial Work Group members about the antics of Betty Weitz. 

I also find it pathetic that Betty Weitz writes letters to NC NOW (including a letter in suppport of anonymous comments), makes numerous public statements at Town Board & School Board meetings and is certainly not shy about making her opinions known but never uses her name when posting comments. Why not put your name to your comments, Betty?

By Marc L. on 04/27/2014 at 8:25 am

I would like to respond to those who claim that those of us who are opposed to the current SG plan are anti-development.  That meme has been adopted by the crew that is calling everyone NIMBYs, and that meme is false and must die.

When I moved here, Chappaqua crossing was zoned for commercial use. All of the plans that have been proposed by SG would require a zoning variance.  Therefore, those plans require scrutiny.  Objecting to a plan because it would cause heavy traffic, put downtown businesses at risk, or destroy property values in the area —is fair scrutiny.  Nonetheless, I could have lived with the plan that the last Board approved, for 111 residential units. That plan was hugely scaled-down from what SG had first proposed.  Moving Town hall to the RD property, and putting in a few shops on the Village Market scale to accommodate 111 new households might also be good ideas. 

When however,  development means putting up what is essentially a new town, behind your house and those of your neighbors, then development is not a good idea. When development means making property more profitable, while respecting the rights of all, that is a good idea. 

I think that Rob should stop making comments about prospective litigation. He is NOT supposed to be a witness for the developer. We have no obligation to accept the environmental study (which, BTW, found that some of traffic consequences could not be mitigated and that other would be mitigated only by substantial road reconstruction.)  We can negotiate with a bidder for a restaurant at the station house for a year, and then change our minds – but not walk away from what we believe to be a bad deal at CC?  Why?  Because SG has money and Carla does not?  No deal is a deal until it’s final. 

The anti-big retail people are not anti-development.  Let’s try to proceed with the Master Plan process.  You’re telling me that New Castle can’t raise $50K to do that correctly?  One silent auction would do it.

By Rita Tobin on 04/27/2014 at 9:47 am

Rob the editot of this site is NOT the enemy. Yes she makes errors iin reporting just like every journalist but often your so-called “facts” are not what you say they are. I watch every video here and go to many of the public sessions. I form my own opinions. You often go way overboard drilling in your position to the point of being simply insulting.  You too say things are out and out wrong. I am always thankful for the repotting, flaws and all. You should cut out the intense hostility to the editor.

By Pro Rob but sometimes,,,, on 04/27/2014 at 10:29 am

Editor’s Note:  You were benched, remember?  Contact me.

By the way, how do I view past issues of NCN?

Editor’s Note: All you can do is use the “Search” box and try to find things that way.  If using multiple words, such as “town hall” be sure to put quotation marks around them or you’ll get every “town” reference and every “hall” reference too.


By Tom L. on 04/27/2014 at 11:49 am

Dear Ms Tobin- I agree with you that plans need scrutiny and I think Greenstein is the perfect person to make sure Summit Grenfield is held accountable. He is tough and determined ( maybe rough around the edges) but I’d rather have him on my side. Nothing about his behavior thus far shoulda that cause you to think that the town board or any other entity isn’t closely scrutinizing this process.
For you and others that think the master plan process and the resulting document some 12-18 months from now is somehow the holy grail and will solve all our problems- I say you are kidding yourself. First, SG won’t wait and we as a community shouldn’t wait. Secondly, based on the biased nature and personal agendas already demonstrated by those involved, we shouldn’t have that much confidence in the final product.
You repeat the often stated opinion that downtown will be at risk should CC be built. I too have lived here a long time. Downtown has always been at risk and continues to deteriorate without CC. That is a function of commerce in the age of internet. I moved here and my neighborhood was residential – now we gave a middle school. A few streets down , also residential the new Millwood Firehouse is being built. Things change that’s life. Your argument is a NIMBY argument. CC has already been scaled down and I trust the final result will be much different and better than you all fear. Let Greenstein do jus job.

By West side Resident on 04/27/2014 at 1:29 pm

I meant to type that Rob is NOT supposed to be giving evidence for the developer.  By telling everyone that the developer would have good claim – and by the way, the developer does not have a good claim, and the environmental report changes nothing (whoever is telling Rob that is insufficiently acquainted with Article 78 proceedings) – Rob is arguing SG’s case.  He shouldn’t do that.

  I’ve listed many reasons why the CC development is a bad idea; the effect in downtown is merely one such reason.  The plan hasn’t been scaled down; the pieces have merely been moved around.  I understand, too, that SG wants the restriction on larger stores – I.e., in addition to the supermarket – lifted. 

Name-calling will deter no one, as everyone should have by now realized.  It’s just venting.

By Rita Tobin on 04/27/2014 at 2:44 pm

WOW!!! I just watched the video and all I can say is wow. What a bunch of contentious babies and whiners. Seriuosly – what do people think this Master Plan will accomplish if all the participants are lined up with their agendas and their minds made up. Ms Weitz is over the top aggressive and I dont understand why should should take up so much time. Ms Katz is Deputy Supervisor and clearly she has an opinion. All her comments and questions indicate her position. Supervisor Greenstein steps down because of his “bias” but Katz (not a formal committe member)will continue to influence. As mentioned in another comment, Napoli sits on a sub committtee looking into commercial/commerce but he currently working on his own downtown development. What sense does that make?
Having watched this meeting and generally been up to date on the CC debate it is clear that this master plan process is nothing more than a smokescreen and a further delay tactic.
We have a 110 acre parcel of land in our midst that is underutilized and under taxed. It is the perfect place for an upscale market which most people are clamouring for. Pretending that preventing retail at CC will save downtown is an empty and phoney argument. Downtown has been in decline for years without retail at CC. The master plan wont fix that. The master plan wont lower my taxes. The solution is to bring a proportionatley sized retail/commercial/residential complex to CC that has tight controls on hours of operation and on traffic. The development already sits on top of a highway and train tracks. Lets not make out that it is pristine and quiet.

By lets move along on 04/27/2014 at 3:13 pm

Rita Tobin- part of the problem with this debate over the years is people make statements that and their opinions but they try to mask them as facts. You just did it when you said ” the developer does not have a good claim”. What facts and what legal background do you have to substantiate that claim?
Our last town board had legal council that warned if we continue to delay the developer claim would get stronger. Clinton Smith did not make that claim unilaterally , he sought the legal opinions of others. That led to negotiations that suspended the litigation. Our new town board has hired a new set of lawyers and they also recognize the strength of the developers claims. Greenstein is a lawyer and Brodsky is a real estate lawyer. 
The developer has been obstructed, stalled, delayed and the only accommodation made prior to retail at CC was 110 condos which took 2 years to get approval after being scaled back multiple times. Straw man arguments were made, a petition full of lies was circulated, and fear mongering ruled the day. The developer filed the appropriate documentation, satisfied environmental concerns and conducted their own studies. The town also conducted its own study.  Both concluded retail at CC works.
We know moratoriums don’t hold up in court. There is precedent of towns unsuccessfully trying to stop progress simply on the NIMBY argument.
It does not take a rocket scientist or a legal scholar to recognize this developer – after 8 YEARS – has a strong case and New Castle will lose.
What facts and legal experience have you to proclaim the developer does not gave such a claim?

By Ronnie on 04/27/2014 at 4:59 pm

All of these rah rah Rob comments are clearly from him or his minions,  the very few minions that he has left.  Most have seen his low, dishonest methods, his disgusting smears and have abandoned him.  These rah rah Rob comments are so full of distortions, outright lies and general b. s. that anyone who has been following this process sees them for what they are.

So, keep up the b.s. Rob.  The town has your number.  Write away, but you are fooling no one.  You are always good for a laugh.  Unfortunately in the process you are ruining the town and the joke is on us.

By rob, you are fooling no one on 04/27/2014 at 5:46 pm

Rita – you prove NOTHING will make the anti development – NIMBY gang happy. The demise of downtown is rubbish – it is already on the decline. Then you say they havent scaled it down at CC but “the pieces have merely been moved around”. Well yeah! they were moved around to satisfy all of you that cried “STRIP MALL”. So now its a Town Square configuration and you are still complaining.

To “rob, you are fooling no one” – I support Greenstein and his efforts to work with Summit Greenfield to deliver the best outcome for all of us. I am not RG – I dont know how to define one of his minions – but Im not one of them either. I am a resident and a realist. Its funny because “his minions” voted him in and now his minions have turned on him because he is doing exactly as he said he would do. He said we needed a tough negotiator to sit down with SG and get us a Whole Foods (his idea as he reminded us throughout the election), move town hall (which he spoke/wrote of regularly, and get SG to deliver a better facility. Thats what he is doing – so why have you who voted for him turned on him?

By anonymous on 04/27/2014 at 7:04 pm

@ Pro Rob but sometimes,

A reporter is held to a higher standard.  A reporter should fact check.  Most importantly, a reporter should be objective.  I have no problem with factual mistakes from time to time.  But there is no excuse for interjecting opinion into a non-editorial piece.  That crosses the line.  I also have no problem with investigative reporting.  But, if you are going to make an accusation you better check, and double check your facts.  The last survey put before this community created much controversy.  It is inexcusable to write a story that will likely inflame NCNOW readers without checking the facts. Reporting that a survey was created without being shown to the steering committee was 100% wrong. Reporting that the survey was on the verge of being mailed was also 100% wrong.  Controversy is fine but it should not be manufactured.

Editor’s Note: Now exactly did where did you pick up your percentage of wrongness?  100% on both issues?  Please point out to me the basis—in my story—on which you decided that. 

Tomorrow I will publish a response to Rob Greenstein’s accumulated critiques of my reporting and my fact checking.  In the meantime, you should check your ears, return to the video and listen more carefully, then recalculate those percentages.

By Controversy is fine but sometimes on 04/27/2014 at 8:56 pm

To “By anonymous on 04/27/2014 at 7:04 pm”

Let me try to answer your question…..The reason Greenstein supporters have turned on him is because he is disingenuous and has done nothing to find a suitable solution for CC….other than sign on 100% with the SG plan!! If you participated/attended his presentations and understood his agenda and platform during the campaign, then you would also be outraged by his deceptive moves. He was the one that pointed out that the scale of this retail project was the only way for SG to save itself from the enormous financial loss to itself and stockholders. He made fun and ridiculed the thought of Five Guys and Chipolte restaurants!!ETC,ETC,ETC.  There are plenty of other options that make sense without ruining the east side of our town and destroying our downtown. He was the one that believed our town should not be bullied because SG made a bad investment.. I sat there and listened to him and also spoke with him about the issues. He has done a full 180 on his campaign platform….total scam! Stop being anonymous and sign your name.
Danny Gladstone

By Danny Gladstone on 04/28/2014 at 7:12 am

Stop the Master Plan process, and get back to using town discretion. Modify the procedures as to how Town discretion can be used in an expedited fashion that would allow an applicant to move just as fast, as if an updated Master Plan existed. Get back to the application of town discretion. Trying to get anything out of the current master plan process is like having five super chefs trying to make a birthday cake in a small kitchen.

By Swamp water on 04/28/2014 at 9:40 am

The attitude of the town board towards this publication is indeed one of hostility. It seems this is mostly though not entirely determined by the supervisor.  One might say it is warranted because the editor is supposedly biased or she gets things wrong.  Every journalistic source has some level of bias. (Every one of residents does as well.)  Neutrality could only be achieved by posting only videos with no text but that is not reporting. Also the board is like a hostile witness in a courtroom, meaning it is not truly forthcoming on some controversial issues and to get material information out of it, it is sometimes necessary to ask leading questions. Maybe the questions divulge a particular perspective or maybe they are just probing.  Sometimes the editor has to take a leap to link things together in order to get a coherent narrative.  Mistakes are made; complete neutrality in reporting is a fallacy.  But this editor provides us all with a wealth of information on which we can base our own judgments. I suggest it is unimportant to point out where she lives again and again.  we know it.  use this resource for its many great features and form your own opinion.  The supervisor has attempted to blacklist her due to her policy of allowing anonymous commentary. He may call it something else but not too long ago he and the board refused to answer reasonable questions posed by the editor due to that policy.  Obviously he is now posting here again but the tenor is needlessly aggressive. Maybe she strikes too close to home.

By Resident on 04/28/2014 at 9:48 am


SG litigated its case and lost.  The Court stated that, regardless of what negotiations, studies, planning , etc., SG had no legal right to a zoning variance. The Town greed to grant SG a variance that would permit the construction of 110 units at Chappaqua Crossing; not what the developer requested, but nonetheless evidence that the Town acted in good faith. 

SG appealed, and the case was settled. I do not doubt that the Town’s attorney believed that it was better to settle than to continue litigate.  Litigation is expensive and, even when a lower court has delivered a strong, well-reasoned and well-documented opinion, there are no certain outcomes.

The Town’s attorneys have (if Mr. Greenstein is to be believed), I think, jumped too quickly to the conclusion that subsequent events have strengthened SG’s position. For example, the environmental report stated that the traffic congestion created by CC could be only partially mitigated, and then only after substantial road construction. So it wasn’t as cut and dried as you claim.

You make factual statements- e.g., that “the developer has been obstructed, stalled, delayed”- that the lower court categorically rejected.  Also, as noted above, the environmental findings raised questions about traffic, e.g. that the Town has the right to consider in making a final zoning decision. Moreover, the economic effect on homeowners in the area is a valid concern for a Town Board, and the Town isn’t likely to be accused of acting in bad faith or even arbitrarily (which, BTW, the Town may be able to) for considering such factors.

Although one can state categorically who will win or lose a law suit,  I think that people are rushing too quickly to the conclusion that our case has weakened.  What we’ve shown is a continued effort to take SG’s proposals seriously. If we ultimately decide that “111 Condos” are all that SG can have, then that’s the ball game.

By Rita Tobin on 04/28/2014 at 12:31 pm

To D Gladstone- I think you heard from Greenstein what you wanted to hear. I heard him too. I read his comments. I read his letters and I also spoke with him.  The Greenstein of 4 years ago who said “Summit Greenfield bought commercially zoned property and therefore we should not change zoning to accommodate or bail them out of their bad investment” is not the same Greenstein that ran for electtion last year. Circumstances had dramatically changed and the stalling and obstrcution had given SG an edge.
More recently and during the election the following.On June 24, 2013 Greenstein wrote this. “One year later, on March 16, 2012, I wrote a letter stating that we should foster a working relationship with Summit Greenfield as we take each other’s interests into consideration.  I suggested a high-end specialty grocery store – like Whole Foods – at Chappaqua Crossing.”  He wrote “I believe Whole Foods will be coming to Chappaqua Crossing.  I also believe most residents – including my wife – would be excited about a Whole Foods at Chappaqua Crossing.”  http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_letter_to_the_editor_move_town_hall_and_police_to_chappaqua_crossing
Greenstein was clear he didn’t want a strip mall and wouldn’t accept a Kings Crossing type complex. But he certainly and clearly indicated retail at CC. He regularly stated that the next supervisor must be a tough negotiator to make sure New Castle is best served. He often talked about moving Town Hall and Police to CC – he did that again at Candidates night. Now he is doing exactly what I heard him say. You Mr Gladstone weren’t paying attention.  And if he was playing both sides against each other than shame on you for voting for him because you only cared about yourself anyway.

By Long time resident on 04/28/2014 at 12:31 pm

Mr Gladstone – your NIMBY is showing.
There you go again- you say ” there are plenty of other options that make sense without ruining the east side of our town and destroying our downtown”.
I think Greenstein is exploring options. He is considering a land swap or some such deal to bring town hall to CC. He campaigned on that. He is working with SG to eliminate the strip mall concept – he campaigned on that. He is trying to secure and not lose the key anchor tenant Whole Foods – he advocated for an upscale grocer.  I hear if they build the small number of affordable housing units at CC ( already approved) he might get us out of the Conifer mess – he campaigned on that.
As far as your old fear mongering that this will ” ruin” your side of town and ” destroy” downtown that is all bunk and BS. Says who? What study? The town and SG already paid for professional studies by highly reputable consulting firms and they both concluded this not so. I know you folks don’t trust the studies because they disprove your emotional arguments but you will accept nothing anyway. As far as destroying downtown- are you kidding? Downtown has been deteriorating for years without retail at CC. How many nail salons and banks , coffee and pizza , real estate brokers do you need. To your point about our town being bullied by SG, that may have been the case with Carpenter but I doubt RG gets pushed around by anyone. At the end of the day the lawyers and the legal system have much influence over the final outcome and Greenstein is dealing with that reality. Given it’s been 8 years your side of town has obstructed anything and everything you have put yourselves in this position. Those early houses, condos, and age restricted proposals might have been better but you folks objected to them too. Readers Digest is gone forever – they ain’t coming back.

By Tax payer on 04/28/2014 at 1:37 pm

I watched the video and heard among other things one committee member say they had had no input into questions. It was also clear there was a big push to make the mailing of the water informarion. Maybe the vacation week complicated things because members were pulled in different directions. However the editor was not 100 percent wrong on either point.

By Townee on 04/28/2014 at 2:06 pm

Dear Mr Gladstone-your characterization of Greenstein as disingenuous and a total scam is laughable. Nothing happening right now should be a surprise to anyone who kept both eyes and ears open during the election and preceding debates.Greenstein openly took credit for the idea of Whole Foods at CC while he said we should not have retail at CC. He insisted that SG bought commercially zoned property and that is what it should remain at the same time he was telling people that we need a strong tough negotiator to work with SG. He campaigned to move town hall to CC. You voted for him anyway. He was often rude , a bully, disrespectful, antagonistic, and even publicly embarrassed a resident at a tb meeting calling him drunk/crazy. You voted for him anyway.
Katz brought nothing to the table and she too was disrespectful, rude, and crossed the line when she compared school shootings to Greeley in proximity to retail at CC-you voted for her anyway. Brodsky’s family let their downtown property decay, rot as an eyesore until magically when he became a candidate it was painted. Then in his only letter he advocated for relaxed regulations to allow landowners downtown to expand- you voted for him anyway. Team New Castle altogether had ZERO government experience- not a single appointed or elected position EVER – you voted for them anyway.
You and your hood voted your selfish interests and ignored multiple signs of what was to come. Now it is here and you feel betrayed? what a joke – now the entire town suffers because you ignored and enabled these 3 amateurs.

By Robert M on 04/28/2014 at 4:11 pm

Danny Gladstone- you voted for a guy that also supporters and embraced the Napoli plan. That plan is about building out downtown with a 400 car cement garage bunker with a caged turf field on top. That and additional construction for chain stores right next to Bell Middle School. That’s also what your candidate supported. You voted for him in spite of the stupidity of that plan and the danger and traffic it would bring to Bell students. But when the traffic is near your house and your kids you object and complain.
You NIMBYs got what you deserve for your selfish and myopic behavior.

By Bell parent on 04/28/2014 at 5:19 pm

I listened to the meeting and I agree with Christine’s corrected story.

By Joan Frances on 04/28/2014 at 7:15 pm

Dear Danny Gladstone- my wife and I lived in Lawrence Farms East for 30 years. We raised a wonderful family and hope to stay in our home for the forseeable future. We have witnessed many changes these years including the rise and fall of a Readers Digest. We bit our lips as our neighbors rallied around Team New Castle littering our community and our street with campaign posters. One look at their agendas, their lack of experience, their embarrassingly bad behavior, and their rhetoric and it was very obvious these people were not qualified to represent the best interests of our town. I watched town board meetings and cringed at their lack of respect and decorum. The then candidate for Supervisor spoke out of both sides of his mouth on so many issues I lost count. Yet my neighbors embraced them on the unrealistic belief that they would and could halt progress at CC. Don’t get me wrong, I am concerned about traffic but I never believed a sewerage treatment facility ,Burger King or Home Depot are coming.
As a long time resident I was most concerned with the Supervisors embrace of the Napoli plan to bring a large parking garage to downtown, complete with chain stores and large 5 story theater. I think that is far more perilous to Bell students than retail at CC would be to Greeley students. But my community voted for him anyway holding hope that he would save them. The claim by you that retail at CC would destroy downtown is most disingenuous. I know most of my neighbors shop in Mt Kisco and Armonk now. They go to A&P, M Greens, and Deccicios. Once there they shop for other things. You cry about destroying downtown but you don’t shop there now!
Penny was the more qualified candidate. She was experienced and was honest in recognizing the inevitable at CC. It’s best not to fight it and work with the board to get it right. By antognizing Mr Greenstein you will make it much worse. You voted for him so best to work with him not against.

By A neighbor on 04/29/2014 at 6:55 am

Whether you agree with retail at CC or not, there are 2 indispuatble facts

1) Team New Castle broke many of their promises.

2) They should have never been involved in this process.  They keep buttering us up by saying “there are a lot of brilliant minds in this town”  – then you should have let those minds do their work.

By simple facts on 04/29/2014 at 9:10 am

To NIMBYs and Gladstone – you contend that Supervisor Greenstein is not doing anything to find a suitable solution for CC. You claim he has signed on 100% with the SG plan. I disagree. I call your attention to the editors response to Greenstein in this current issue. She quotes Greenstein several times on his negotions with SG.  He clearly stated he is working with our lawyers and SG to reduce the current 120000 sq ft plan. He is trying to reduce it to 90k and move 30k downtown. He is trying to include at CC a tennis bubble , gym, or pool to be included as part of the 120000sq ft. He is negotiating with SG to get town recreational space.
These are the types of negotiations he indicated he would conduct when he ran for office.
You are patently wrong in charectirizing his efforts as ” signing on 100% with SG” and not seeking. ” suitable solution”. Let’s hope he is successful but even if he is not it is wrong of you to make false accusations.

By Get it right on 04/29/2014 at 10:20 am

Rob you are a sneaky lying person who has made us all of us who supported you look bad.  Please tell me how many times you have spoken with SG and what did you talk about?  Seems to me you should have practiced what you preached..

By Where’s the transparency on 05/01/2014 at 10:18 am

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.