The comment below just came in, and I think it should start a new Thread. We didn't get into this pickle overnight. It took years of mischief and neglect. Part of the responsibility lies with the citizenry too, for not paying attention. Now we have to pay the piper.
"Mike G has left a new comment on your post "It Was Like David and Goliath......":
Greetings... I can happily say that i participated in voting out the
incompetence. I'm just as happy as anyone else when it comes to the
potential changes ahead. With that being said can we finally put an end
to showering the new supervisor and his team with well deserved praise.
I
come here routinely to keep up to date with whats going on. People on
here are focusing too much on patting themselves on the back and
re-enforcing what a great thing has been accomplished. Now that the
election as over and 2 months behind us can we get some sort of real
discussions going on regarding the 'painful' tax increase that's hanging
over our heads. I for one am very concerned and almost enraged that i
will be left holding the bag as a fairly new resident. Depending on how
severe the increase i may find myself in a situation where i will have
to put the house up for sale and most likely take a pounding on the
resale value.
When looking for a new house you set certain
criteria(school dist,neighborhood,taxes etc etc) for where you're
looking to settle down with your loved ones.Its not a decision most take
lightly. This time around i thought I had all my bases covered. Never
in my wildest dreams did i consider it necessary to dig down deep into
town politics prior to purchasing here. Had i known what i've learned
over the past 2 years of living in EG i would have run for the hills.
Im
very concerned regarding the language Mr Conway used in the TU article
regarding the tax hike. Depending on how great the hike is, I could be
forced to lose the home.Trying to make my new mortgage payment may
become to hard or just impracticable.
Listen i'm an adult and
very realistic. I budgeted and expected taxes to increase over time.
That's what they do,they go up. What blindsided me was this impending
"hurtful" increase on such a large scale. I would expect out of my new
supervisor someone that makes a calculated well thought out decision on
how to go about recouping the pile of money owed. I'm positive this is
what the residents of EG want and deserve. If the supervisor is not
willing to give it the proper attention it deserves on the behalf of his
constituents then he is no better than the people we Just pushed out. I
know his intentions are indeed in the right place but please don't let
your drive and determination cloud your judgement. It would be nice to
see this administration stick around for quite a while to get some real
work done over the long term. Pleased realize , if you place too many
people outside of their comfort zone too quickly you will find yourself
alienated and this administration will be 1 and done.
From what i
gather certain people are not willing to drop the money on a proper
study whats fair. If you're gonna stick me with some monumental bill at
least stroke me a little and let me know you at least gave me the time
of day and were somewhat concerned about my family's well being.
Good luck and thank you."
Listen, I hear you loud and clear. And as I told another person on facebook if you have suggestions by all means please throw them out there. This is the last thing anyone wants. My taxes are already too damn high.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, we have showered a lot of praise upon our new administration and in all reality they haven't done much of anything, so from here on out lets get down to business.
I am sorry if you have to move, but this is a subject that has been discussed with many a family in East Greenbush so you are not alone, unless of course you were one of the families that has been feeding at the trough over the last few years. Again sorry Hopefully everything works out for you.
@ 8:26 PM- They haven't done much of anything? Are you kidding? They've been in office for three weeks. They are grappling with a solution to an unbudgeted for 30 year sewer debt. They plan to hold public hearings and listen to public comments on all important issues. They formed a transition committee and hired employees based on merit for the first time in town history. They passed a resolution preventing the siting of a casino within town borders. IMHO, that's not "much of anything" it's a pretty darn good three week start. They have been getting "down to business" since they were sworn into office. I will certainly be publicly questioning each of them when I disagree with them on issues, but as of now I think they are doing pretty well and deserve to be recognized for it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 9:08,
DeleteYes they have done all of that and that is pretty good for the first few weeks, I agree. I didn't mean it to sound like that.
One other thing, no offense but if you want to respond to me please use a name, and thank you. Any name will do just not anonymous please.
Folks, let's stay focused on Mike G's message. He said two things that I think are the meat of his post:
ReplyDelete"What blindsided me was this impending "hurtful" increase on such a large scale." and "From what I gather, people are not willing to drop the money on a proper study."
He's clearly worried about a gargantuan increase in the user fees for sewer and water services, as am I.
I'm sorry but does anyone else remember Jack Conway standing up during the comment period before he was elected and stating that he supports the study Ms. Matters keeps asking for? I do. Yet, at the last meeting he said, "I will not be supporting this resolution tonight." Why not? What happened to change his mind?
As I understand it, the focus of the study is to look at the logic and sense of sewer districts that have been in place since the 1970s and figure out how they can be redistricted to be more efficient and make more sense and also to look at the current rate structure to make sure that people are being billed appropriately for their USE of the system. So, how can that be a bad thing? Why would anyone be opposed to that? Before I pay more money, I'm going to need to know just exactly what "method" are they using to figure out how much to increase the USER FEES because, as we all know, the tax levy is set until next January. We should all be asking Ms. Matters for a copy of the study proposal she's pushing for so we can see what this new board is rejecting. We then need to know how what the board is proposing is better. If there is one thing the casino craziness taught us, it's pay attention, ask questions, and speak up for what you want before it's too late. Once those user fees are set, that's it, folks. There's no going back.
This is Supervisor Jack Conway's report for 1/22/16 on the increase in sewer rates:
ReplyDeleteBy now you’ve probably heard that we’re planning a significant increase in the sewer rates. This is news that nobody wants to hear but it’s unavoidable in light of the August 2016 closing on the permanent financing for the upgrade to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. At that point we’ll be responsible for debt service payments of $650,000 - $700,000 per year for the next thirty years. In 2012 a bipartisan decision was made to upgrade the plant in the wake of years of DEC consent orders that cited the Town for dumping waste into the Hudson River. Financing for the $14 million project was obtained from a low interest loan from the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation but in August that financing must be rolled over into long term permanent financing. After the closing we’ll be responsible for the debt service payments.
We haven’t had a sewer rate increase since March 2011. Our sewer rates are currently low compared to other municipalities. We’re still crunching the numbers to determine how much the rates need to be raised but the increase is necessary and can’t be delayed. At the February Town Board meeting a public hearing will be scheduled so that you have a chance to express your views on the subject. That public hearing will take place before the March 16th Town Board meeting. In the interim, please feel free to contact my office with questions or to suggest alternative methods for handling the debt service.
The good news is that the upgraded Wastewater Treatment plant is an important asset for the Town that will serve our wastewater treatment needs for decades to come. The enhanced capacity will facilitate growth and allow us to proceed with a vigorous plan to revitalize Columbia Turnpike and other important projects. We’re no longer dumping waste into the Hudson River and the air quality in the vicinity of the plant is improved. There is no easy remedy for financing infrastructural projects of this magnitude but we will continue to be open and transparent about how we arrive at decisions like this and the calculations used to determine the increase.
Looks like that $600,000 annual debt service number has been out there since October of 2014. See this piece from the ever diligent Dwight Jenkins:
ReplyDeletehttps://eastgreenbushdreams.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/a-vision-of-what-could-be/
And thanks to Dwight for bringing it to my attention. I read it and linked it when it was done, but the salient detail slipped by.
Thanks,
DeleteDon and Dwight,
That is what I keep trying to tell people, this is something that has been going on for years it didn't just come up over night. Yes people are not happy and quite honestly I'm not either, but this is unavoidable. Langley could have raised them last year, but decided against that because he wanted to get re-elected.
12:31AM,
ReplyDeleteAlso contained within Resolution 25-2016 by CP Matters was a statement from Delaware Engineering, the entity CP Matters had directed to conduct the study. Here's the important quote: "Given the current fiscal situation of the Town, the status of the WWTP upgrade project, and a very reasonable plan to ensure that the debt service can be paid, proceeding with a rate structuring study at this time is not advisable. To that end, I trust that the resolution regarding the rate study will be withdrawn or tabled indefinitely."
The resolution further stated: "the town comptroller concurs with Delaware's (sic) that this resolution is not advisable at this time and should be withdrawn or tabled indefinitely;"
Based on those two statements, it seems to me as if CP Matters made the correct decision in moving to table Resolution 25-2016 indefinitely. Her motion was seconded and the town board voted 5 to 0.
To sum up, CP Matters is no longer "asking for" the study at this time, based on the opinions of both Delaware Engineering the the Town Comptroller. In my opinion, CP Matters showed due diligence by making her motion to table resolution 25-2016 based on the additional information provided by Delaware Engineering and the Town Comptroller.
Jack said, "We’re still crunching the numbers to determine how much the rates need to be raised," but after that, who gets charged? User fees are only supposed to be charged for the maintenance and operation of the plant, so people who aren't hooked-up to public water and sewer don't have to pay the costs to operate and maintain the systems that provide those utilities, which makes sense.
ReplyDeleteThe tax levy is used for capital improvement costs because we ALL benefit as a community to have a sewerage treatment plant, which makes sense to.
But this new administration isn't making the distinction between users and non-users. The way they're approaching it, we're ALL users, which is unfair and wrong. But don't take my word for it. Demand to know the METHOD they used to raise what they call "the rates," not the user rates. Remember, the devil is in the details.
Gadfly 10;13AM-
ReplyDeleteAgreed that the $600,00 debt figure has been out there. What was never out there is an enacted plan to pay for it by the previous administration. The previous administration (meaning the entire town board at that time) chose instead to kick the can down the road by refusing to address the payment of the $600,000, now closer to $700,000 annual debt service payments.
Our previous Town Board instead chose to spend the vast majority of its time fighting with each other, instead of working together to find solutions to these and many other difficult issues.
I remain optimistic that the current Town Board will spend the majority of its time working together for benefit the tax and rate payers of east greenbush while at the same time keeping their individual egos in check.
I think you have a point. If we go back and look at some Board minutes (which I haven't done yet) we just might find that the "rate study" project was voted down by Langley, Malone and and Mangold some time ago when it should have been done.
DeleteIn the interest of fairness it has to be done. Perhaps some kind of equalization formula could be developed which would "even out" the tax hit down the road.
When Mary from Delaware presented at either the November or December pre-board meeting in 2014 she stated that there are definitely instances with our current rate structure that shows discrepancies in our current, outdated rate structure. She then went on to give an example of how one of the 5 (I believe that was the amount of different structures) was based on frontage, so an elderly lady who doesn't use much sewer/water who has a large front yard would pay substantially more than the gas station next door who is closer to the road.
DeleteLangley and Sue were against the study because they felt we had experienced individuals who could do the study themselves. Langley requested that CFAC look at the rates, to which CFAC concluded in April 2015 that they didn't have to technical expertise to do such a study. Langley even stated at the pre-board meeting we have Hank Labarba and Associates who he relied on to work with us on these rates. I believe he even said "this is the way it's always done, with Hank and some pen and paper." He also mentioned in April that we would be potentially entering in litigation with Delaware so he was against the study (this was after the accidental switch incident that pumped sludge into our WWTP). Gilbert was of course against the study, and felt "we had people who are experts in the field of sewer and water rates" and that we didn't need to spend the money. Sue stated in April that we had "perfectly good engineers and planners" who could complete the study. OK, well if we had all of these experts, where are they and what did they do? NOTHING. I'm not even sure Malone made a peep, just voted no because it was Mary Ann's resolution.
Sue voted down the rate increase first because she wanted to make sure we knew where our money was and maybe we could get it from other sources, including Regeneron whom she stated owes us money.
My question regarding the study is back in April 2015 Delaware stated that the study could be wrapped up in our financing. Is this still an option?
Also, George had responded to Liz Tice's concern that she uses a septic tank and he stated that the town has to charge a minimal usage.
1:29 p.m. You have an amazing memory. Thank you for the post. BTW,MAM first introduced the study reso in the spring of last year. She said she tabled the reso Wednesday night because she did not have a second for it much/less three votes for it. That makes four times the reso has failed to pass. The town has millions of dollars to spend on consultants for everything under the sun but not one penny for a study that would benefit the residents pocketbooks. Shame.
DeleteThank you anonymous 1:29pm,
DeleteI would like to know exactly what all of these people were doing that were on the town payroll too!!!!
1:29 good post. What do you make of Delaware recent comment that the outside study shouldn't be done and that the study resolution should be tabled indefinitely?
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear why they feel it should be tabled indefinitely. My initial reaction was that they're sick of our town bickering and just want their bill paid, which probably is true but can't be the actual reason they feel it shouldn't be done.
Delete2 p.m. When and where (in an e-mail?) did Delaware make such a statement? Why would they put forth a five page proposal to do a study and then back away from it? The proposal explains what needs to be done and why it needs to be done. It clearly needs to be done. So to say they're now backing off from it just doesn't make sense.
DeleteAlso, it's NOT too late yet to wrap the cost of the study into the financing. For more information about that, you should ask the comptroller.
3:12pm, The Delaware statement was right in the body of Resolution 25. It might be worthwhile to ask them for an explanation at Wednesday's TB meeting at 6pm.
Delete3:21pm, Why would the TB vote on a resolution to have Delaware undertake a study when Delaware is quoted in the same resolution as saying they wanted the resolution tabled indefinitely and that a study at this time was not advisable?
Looks like MAM has backed away from the resolution. I have no problem with her changing her mind. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and move on.
ReplyDelete2:04 p.m. She hasn't backed away from it at all. She said the rest of the board members don't support it, so she tabled it unless at least two of them ask her to bring it back.
ReplyDeleteIf Delaware wrote a proposal to do a comprehensive study that they now think the town doesn't need, then they should refund the money they were paid to write it. Otherwise, accepting payment for it would be unethical.
ReplyDeleteHello anon at 1:29: I am not on septic, never said I was. Apology accepted!
ReplyDeleteDidn't mean to offend you but I vaguely remembered George Phillps response so before I wrote that I checked the minutes from the 12/17/14 Public Hearing and the minutes read "Elizabeth Tice stated that she has to pay a lot of money for septic and does not think it is right that she has to pay for sewer also." None-the-less, my the point of that part of the comment was George's response, ,y apologies for stating your name.
DeleteI do have a question: why do we keep using the "same" engineers and consultants?
ReplyDeleteFamiliarity breeds contempt does it not! Have they ever been really challenged on anything ?
Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see!
ReplyDeleteI had asked for a rate other than "minimum" for those of us that don't use the minimum required. Sorry if the notes had been typed incorrectly! Or better yet, come to the board meetings and hear for yourself!
Very interesting piece on the front page of today's TU:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Growth-sparks-concerns-about-conflicts-of-6779822.php
Is it possible that the resolution wasn't written properly and Delaware made no such recommendation to table the resolution indefinitely?
ReplyDelete9:08 p.m. No. Delaware made the recommendation; it is documented in an e-mail dated 1/14/16. What remains to be explored is why the town PAID Delaware good money for a five page, comprehensive proposal that they no longer back. This board is now back to using the same consultant that Mr. Langley used (i.e. LaBarba & Assoc) to determine the amount of the sewer rate increase, yet the board voted no last year to do the same thing this board now wants to do. Apparently, Delaware no longer thinks it's necessary to properly and competently objectify adjustments to fee-rates for sewer service in advance of the necessary servicing of debt. Their proposal talks about how the "Budget Analysis" task will evaluate accepted methods to distribute costs among the various classes of users." It goes on to say that "the merits and drawbacks of assessing costs for localized operation and maintenance vs. distributing costs over the entire system will be evaluated and a recommendation made including a justification for the recommended cost assessment." Nothing has changed, our rate structure is still highly complex and variable among the various districts yet somehow, in the absence of the study, Delaware now thinks that the town has "a very reasonable plan to ensure that the debt service can be paid," so suddenly, "proceeding with a rate structuring study is not advisable at this time?" It's not hard to understand. They need to rake in the money now and worry about HOW the town charges residents for services later, if ever.
DeleteThank you Mary Ann for elaborating and taking the time to explain. That was our initial thought, that Delaware just wanted their money, but they are also the ones who gave examples of flaws in our current structure. What plan does Delaware speak of that we have in place to correct these flaws and ensure our rate structure is up to date and not from the 70s? I guess Wednesday we should hopefully find out!
Delete10 a.m. The special meeting of the Town Board on Wednesday isn't about raising rates, it's about other business, but I will say that I, as a board member, have yet to have this "reasonable plan" revealed to me. My problem with it already is that I'm worried that it's a one-size-fits-all plan for repayment of the debt, IF that is even a fair characterization of it. What I want is an adaptable plan that works with the 2016 landscape of the town and one that will work appropriately and equitably for residents for the next 40 years. Without commencing with the study, I just don't think that will happen. I can only hope that I'm wrong because I'm pretty sure the study proposal is dead in the water.
Delete9:08, You should ask CP Matters about that at the Wednesday Town Board Meeting. It was her resolution.
ReplyDeleteKen Crowe's casino story is in today's TU. I think you need to be a subscriber to accesses it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/East-Greenbush-plays-a-new-hand-in-casino-vote-6781345.php
Oh, yes, you sure do have to be a subscriber or buy a paper. How annoying is that? Oh, well, nothing is free.
Deletecopy the link and google it ... you should be able to read the article
ReplyDeleteThank you Mary Ann
ReplyDeleteI know that for myself, I can't afford a substantial increase. And I don't think I'm alone. Between taxes, the high cost of food, extrodinary increases in medical care, the ordinary citizens are struggling to make ends meet.
Someone said something about $100.00 more for the water & sewer. Well, given the total cost involved, I would be amazed if it equates to a mere $100 increase.
I do see that you are concerned for the impact on all of as citizens!
I truly am, Liz, as are Jack, Tom, Tina and Deb. No matter what, I can say with certainty that they will always do what they think is BEST for the town. Jack said the rate increase is going to hurt, so I think we have an obligation to explore every possible avenue of recourse to make sure it doesn't hurt one bit more than it has to. I know the rest of my fellow board members would agree.
ReplyDeleteI have the greatest of confidence in Jack, Mary Ann, Deb, Tom & Tina. It's unfortunate that they've had to step in the "sludge" that has built up since before the McCabe era!
ReplyDeleteThey however, are honest and hardworking and have our best interests in mind!
Thank you all!
I think it's time for some perspective on the looming sewer rate/tax increase. School taxes on our house in East Greenbush are more than 50% of our total annual tax bill, yet no one since the house was built in 1936 has ever attended East Greenbush schools. The school system is part of our municipal infrastructure and it helps maintain growth,stability and property values. The sewer/water system has the same character. Whether you use it or not, it supports sane growth and development. Remember that it was the mismanagement of dumping poop in the Hudson that brought on the growth/development moratorium and the orders on consent.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, whether you use it or not, you support the Library. If one of the fire districts buys a new piece of equipment, the cost gets spread over all of us taxpayers. We all pay for Bruen, even though they've never been audited.
It was graft, corruption and mismanagement which put the Town in such a position as to look for a "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" in a casino to bail it out. If that had happened, it would have supported the graft, corruption and mismanagement. We had stipends, elected officials getting longevity, a guy collecting $170,000 in a "position" never created by the Town Board to which he was never appointed, a Planning Board Chairman on the Town's medical plan, interfund borrowing to the tune of $2,500,000, a Town Attorney on salary with benefits....and on and on.
At least now we have intelligent, competent and transparent people in management who have pledged to operate in the public interest and to give us the information we need to judge whether they are doing just that.
Great post, L. of G., but you must admit that, once revealed, the details of the "reasonable plan" mentioned in reso 25 on the Jan agenda will give us an excellent idea of the kind of intelligence and competence we just elected to the town board. The devil is in the details. Boy, talk about trial by fire! These ordinary folks are responsible for figuring out how to bill a whole town for a $15.6M capital improvement over the next 30-40 years! Hopefully, they are consulting with experts who have experience with just this kind of billing over the long term to pay back the loan. We can't afford to get this wrong.
DeleteGadfly,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of mismanagement.
Has anyone seen the January, 2016 East Greenbush Republican Committee's Financial Disclosure Report? Or how about 5 of the last 6 required reports?
They aren't on the Board of Election's website
According to Moody's, the demographics and tax base of East Greenbush AND the competent management of the School district can produce a decent bond rating:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-assigns-Aa3-to-East-Greenbush-%20%20CSD-NYs-64M-GO--PR_903072850
Given what was on the table tonight at the special meeting related to the Town's infrastructure and the planning oversight for the WWTP the two previous administrations were totally absent from their responsibilities. Looks like the golf course and truck rides supplanted fiduciary responsibilities. A real tragedy. What the "reformers" laid out in the "paint by number" picture is being colored in by the new administration. It's too bad for the taxpayer that the Office of the State Comptroller failed to act when it had the evidence.
ReplyDeleteLooks like we have a town board who listens to the staff at town hall and DPW. They voted yes to needed supplies that were ignored. Nothing is free but the computers and supplies were needed.
DeleteThe fact that the Office of the State Comptroller failed to act when it had the evidence is a 60 Minutes news story in itself. Really, what good is a lion (OSC) that won't use its teeth? Many municipalities operate like lawless fiefdoms but unless OSC can be hauling someone out in handcuffs, they look the other way. McCabe and Langley have saddled the new board with 10 years worth of big problems as Jack began describing last night. Judging by what they are discovering and uncovering on a daily basis, those who lost the election in November should be breathing nothing but a huge sigh of relief.
DeleteI know I'm off point but I've been looking for the meeting minutes for Dec 2015 & the Organizational Meeting Jan 4th. They were approved at January's Board meeting and I can't find them. Are they being posted somewhere other than the normal place? Does anyone know?
ReplyDelete11:21 a.m. Feel free to send an e-mail to Town Clerk Kim Carlock at kcarlock@eastgreenbush.org or phone her at 477-7145 (ext 215) and ask her that question. She will respond to you.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we get creative with solving our problems now that we have what seems like a responsible and well intentioned board?
ReplyDeleteThis problem wasn't created by this board nor the tax payers yet we bear the brunt of it. The real problem here isn't a tax increase, it the long enduring increase to service the debt. Why can't we assemble a panel of business leaders in town, and by that I mean, representatives from Wal-Mart, Target, Regeneron, Starbucks and every COMMERCIAL business in town. Discuss the possibility of a one time tax on businesses to address our debt issues, sewer or town debt, and apply the special tax directly to the debt. If we were to knock the debt down significantly sooner than later, the debt service drops dramatically. If done right we could knock the majority of the debt out in a couple of years, saving millions over thirty years.
It could be done in lieu of what some of them DON'T pay, for some of the services they get. Case in point, the police spend a lot more time at Wal-Mart, than they do anywhere else in town. It's not about whacking the very people who help support this town, it's about asking for help short term to support our solvency long term and minimize the impact on residents. Publicly traded businesses could be asked to contribute as a service to the community and receive recognition locally in the way of advertising for being good neighbors. Host a community sponsor of the month event that recognizes a businesses contribution to the Town and create a fund to pay into that goes directly to the debt. When the debt is under control, the contributions can go away unless it's successful and they choose to continue to sponsor the town to raise fund for needed projects or areas. But it needs to be done responsibly with every dollar going directly to the debt. No borrowing or using the funds for pet projects.
Imagine a sign that says "East Greenbush thanks ABC Corp. for their generous contribution to lowering town debt. Please thank them by showing your support at their store!" I'd shop there if I knew they might help save me a couple of bucks in my taxes, especially if I had to shop anyway and it was right here in town! Just an idea.
8:45 a.m. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way, especially when you're talking about massive debt in the amount of $15.6 million. Businesses and residents alike will pay their fair share (hopefully) of the debt as properly prorated over the life of the loan. Other than that, the only other choice is to move out of town, which some will have to do. The big question is WHO is deciding how the billing will be done and what are their credentials to make billing recommendations to the town board? The board last year and this rejected the proposal to study the districting and rate structure for sewer services so what is left and will users and non-users alike be billed appropriately and equitably? It's not just about raking in the money. We residents have a duty to ourselves and our families to show up to the public hearing for raising the rates and demand to know exactly HOW they are doing this in the absense of updated districting and rate structure information that is more current than the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteGilbert has his shorts in a knot again:
ReplyDelete"OSC needs to pay another visit to our Town of East Greenbush. They would be very interested to see the checks and balances that this new Supervisor has “NOT” put into place with respect to the disbursement of taxpayers dollars."
I totally agree that OSC should be invited in again. Jack should request a forensic audit of the last 10 years of town operations. There's enough mischief to fill a book. New execs in corporations do it all the time. It's standard practice to have an audit when a new administration takes over.
Ed Gilbert is most impatient because he expects Jack to do in one month what McCabe and McLangley failed to do over the course of ten years! But Jack has his hands a little full right now with getting acclimated to his new job in a trial by fire environment where everything has been so badly neglected that it needs to be done immediately. Thanks for nothing, Keith. Jack inherited a pig in a poke. Not only are day to day operations in town haul woefully in need of a tune-up, the demands of the waste water treatment plant alone are a full time job in themselves. There are simply more pressing priorities right now than ushering OSC back in after they just completed an audit, the results of which should be coming out sometime in February, and there are also only so many hours in the day. But, I ask you, where was Gilbert's impatience while his liege Langley was sitting on his hands for four years doing absolutely nothing for the town? Where was Gilbert's impatience with a whole bunch of problems too many to list here? Gilbert is a sour grape who should be chewed up and spit out. He serves no good purpose and I, for one, am sick to death of hearing his name.
DeleteWe have all had more than enough of "Dilbert's" shenanigans. Personally, I am so sick of his stirring the pot, That I can hardly wait to witness him licking the spoon !
DeleteAnd, about that audit, I think it's a great idea for OSC to get the record straight, to let the blame be cast to those who created it. It certainly wasn't created on Jack's time.
Funny how Gilly pretends to be the diehard loyal Republican but he has literally done everything in his power to embarrass and bring down Republicans. Now that his lord and master is gone, Gilly has most assuredly been looking for another spoon to lick since last November. The question is, who would have him? Yuck.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you people give Ed Swillbert the attention he seeks? If you did'nt read his discusting diatribe of a blog,he would'nt get the hits needed to run his site.Stop reading his blog,stop talking about him,and maybe,just maybe he will dry up and go away.
ReplyDeleteRight on, 6:35 a.m., right on.
ReplyDeleteIf you want an interesting read, take a look at the agenda for the ZBA for 2/9/16 at the following link in the context of Dwight's narrative in the second link.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eastgreenbush.org/document-downloads/zoning-board/agendas
https://eastgreenbushdreams.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/planning-and-zoning-boards-abolished-as-unnecessary/
Yes, it reads like this...
ReplyDeleteOLD BUSINESS: ZBA Appeal #2014-20-Brian Hart-1 Cooper Avenue-Conversion of a garage with open storage on the second floor into a two story office building to operate a business -Use Variance-Application Withdrawn by Applicant
So many times discussion of this item has been cancelled by the ZBA. Now they're ready to listen to Brian Hart's appeal? Boy, talk about backing into an answer. Now he wants the ZBA's blessing. Isn't Cooper Ave a residential neighborhood?
Funny....I read it as just the opposite of what you suggest. Isn't the use variance application being withdrawn? There appears to be some serious mischief involved with this operation (the possibility of an illegal sewer connection during the moratorium being one) that I wouldn't be surprised that those involved don't want much nosing around. Guess we'll find out at the meeting.
DeleteFrom an anonymous commenter....
Delete"The issue is more complicated than you might think at first glance. Langley made a deal to accept the pre-existing non-conforming use argument for the site and permitted Brian Hart to proceed without a use variance. This is why the use variance application is being withdrawn. In return, Brian Hart has to apply for an area variance because the footprint of the building exceeds the allowable size. The good news is that there will be a public hearing so Cooper Avenue can be commented upon on the record. The bad news is that the crux of the problem was that he didn't have (and shouldn't have been granted) a use variance."
So Langley was making insider deals??? Who'da thunk it?
DeleteWhat about the sewer connection during the moratorium issue? We need to get to the bottom of that one.
DeleteWell, according to NYS, Brian Hart's case is a textbook example that the OSC gives as to why his use variance should be denied. Why is Matt Polsinello still even on the Planning Board? While I have the utmost trust in the new board, I question the fact that Matt Polsinello still remains there.
Delete10:40pm, Matt Polsinello is still on the planning board because Keith Langley, Mary Ann Matters and Deb DiMartino voted to reappoint him to another multi year term on the planning board at the 2014 organizational meeting.
DeleteLangley was driving the bus on this one and, as usual, he drove it into a ditch. To be fair, in 2014, Matters and DiMartino were brand new bd mbrs and didn't have a clue about any of this. By 2015, Langley was working his deals with Malone and Mangold, so MP was going to be re-upped as PB Chair regardless. MP has a term to serve. He can be voted out as Chair by the TB, and he was last month, but not voted off the PB entirely. The two most pressing questions now are under what circumstances can an appointee be voted off a board IF it is ajudged by a recognized higher authority (not anonymous hypothesizers) that something illegal or improper took place AND where was the Planning Board Attorney Phil Danaher when these shenanigans were happening right under his nose? Did Mr. Danaher protest out loud for the record what was taking place especially with the secret sewer hook-up during the moratorium?
Delete6:27 AM,
DeleteMary Ann Matters and Deb DiMartino voted to appoint Phil Danaher as the Planning Board Attorney at the 2014 Town Board Organizational meeting. Keith Langley didn't drive the bus into the ditch by himself. He couldn't have done it without the votes of Matters and DiMartino.
Give them a break, 6:27. In 2014 they were brand new board members in the "honeymoon period" with Langley and DeFruscio. Do ya think they knew any better at that point? By the end of 2015, they helped a lot to run Langley, DeFruscio, and that dufus Gilbert right out of office. How about appreciating them for that!
Delete9:24am,
DeleteThat's the problem. Mary Ann and Deb were happy to be in a "honeymoon period" with Langley and DeFruscio because Keith and Chris supported and contributed to their elections as the Smart Way Forward Candidates. As a result, they were beholden to Keith and Chris and were happy to do as they were told.
In 2015, they supported Mike Poorman (remember him) for Town Supervisor.
After Langley defeated Poorman in the primary they finally supported JTT.
I think you'll find, if you look at the history, that Matters and DiMartino outlined a very progressive platform in a series of articles in the Advertiser before they were elected. At the 11th hour before the election, Langley and DeF made an appearance of "support" and basically hijacked their effort. Then Langley, as Supervisor, refused to implement the platform. They had every right to be PO'd.
DeleteDear Gadfly,
DeleteI don't disagree. I just object to the didn't have a clue excuse. The Town suffered greatly due to Mary Ann and Debbie's inability to hit the ground running and reluctance to ask questions. That's what brought us the unanimous April, 2014 Casino Resolution. I'll never forget Supervisor Langley's "the Resolution is the Resolution" statement.
Hindsight is always 20/20. I take comfort in the fact that the events of the past years have resulted in the removal of the "machines" from power and the installation of an administration committed to the interests of the people. I trust that the wheeler-dealers are no longer calling their corrupt shots.
DeleteYou are right 10:04. And they also voted to keep Matt Polsinello on as chair of the planning board and as a board member for - what - another 7 years? This, even in the face of numerous complaints about Polsinello's signing of an illegal Plat Approval. And there is proof of that. Shameful.
Delete12:49 p.m.
DeleteSorry but you got it all wrong. The so-called "honeymoon period" had nothing to do with Lang & DeF supporting and contributing to their elections as the Smart Way Forward candidates. First of all, MA and Deb managed and financed their own campaign with minimal help from the Republican Committee. As a result of that, they had no reason to think that MA and Deb were "beholden" to anyone after the election but the voters who they represent and they never even considered "doing what they were told," not ever!! In 2015, they supported Mr. Poorman as a great big vote of NO CONFIDENCE in Langley. Mr. Poorman SIGNIFICANTLY weakened Lang financially by challenging him in a primary race. For that, we owe Mr. Poorman a great big THANK YOU! After Lang defeated Mr. Poorman, MA and Deb moved on to supporting JTT and haven't looked back since. The Gadfly's point is well taken, that if anyone betrayed anyone, Lang, DeF, and Gilbert betrayed MA and Deb, two ELECTED OFFICIALS, by disrespecting them so badly that it could not be tolerated or ignored (case in point, the EGMatterss blog.) The three of them blew it big time. They had it in the palms of their sweaty hands and then proceeded to lose it ALL as fast as they got it, so it's understandable why they're so upset and looking for someone to blame. But, sorry guys, there is no one to blame but yourselves. Please accept it, let it go, and move on.
2:08-
DeleteOne of the major precepts of the Matters, DiMartino Smart Way Forward campaign was how they were going to support Langley, and by extension DeFruscio, if they were elected to the Town Board. It's very telling that in a less than 24 month period Mary Ann and Deb supported Langley, Poorman and Conway for Supervisor what adventures will the next 24 months bring for this changeable duo?
It's all just sour grapes. Let's not judge them so harshly until we see how they do with honest,forthright, professional board members. Because of the stink of Langley, DeFruscio, and Gilbert on their records, do they really deserve all this condemnation? It's only L/DeF/Gilbert who think they do but they're just sore losers.
DeleteSo you're saying they're going to leave it as a garage? Then what decision are they appealing?
ReplyDeleteIt no longer is a garage. That's what all the fuss is about! It was reconstructed into a "office building", all done without permits and approvals. That is except for Langley and Posilello's.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to hear the bleeding Hart's appeal to the ZBA. The ZBA should require him to give a full account of what went down, on the record, including dates and names, before they grant him another thing. Fyi, if Hart tells all, don't be surprised to hear the name Joe Cherubino surface.
DeleteMeant Polsinello! Sorry about that
ReplyDeleteGadfly, remember when Colonie Town Supervisor Paula Mahan proposed a one-time deficit correction tax of $250 on Colonie residents? Could this be what's coming to get a jump on collecting the money needed for the first $700,000 installment of the WWTP loan? This would be one way in 2016 of getting around the fact that the tax levy wasn't raised last year; it will be next year for sure. The irony here is that Langley failed to raise taxes AND to get re-elected. Thanks for nothing, Keith! Now, we may ALL have to pay more this year, users and non-users alike, IF they decide to go the "one-time tax" route.
ReplyDelete8:12 AM:
ReplyDeleteIt's also important to remember that CPs Matters and DiMartino refusal to raise the tax levy to the tax cap of 0.72% resulted in the Town's loss of approximately $140,000 in tax revenue, which could have been used to at least somewhat offset the installment price tag of the WWTP loan payment.
I agree with most of the criticism of Supervisor Langley's performance, or lack thereof, but Councilpersons Matters and Di Martino also bear a large responsibility for the dis function and misfeasance of the last two years.
8:12 I understand why you feel this way but I respectfully disagree and I would like to explain why.
ReplyDeleteCP DiMartino and I never refused to raise taxes because it never came up. There is not a single resolution on record by Mr. Langley proposing to raise the tax cap. That is because he had no intention of raising taxes, especially during an election year. He tried to raise water and sewer rates but three board members, myself included, were not satisfied that the "method" he was using, which was not revealed to us or the public, to raise rates could be trusted to bill residents appropriately and equitably for the significant capital improvement and maintenance and operation costs associated with the new WWTP. The fiscal malfeasance in 2014 and 2015 was due to his steadfast refusal to work with the rest of the board. The dysfunction aspect of it is another matter altogether.
Speaking for myself only, when I was elected, I expected a totally different experience than the one I got. As I explained last year in the Advertiser, the supervisor was not able to work WITH with a board; instead, he expected us to work FOR him, but a board of elected officials doesn't work that way. By 2015, the supervisor was working with the democrats on the board and shutting out CP DiMartino and me altogether. He would not even respond to our e-mails or phone calls. In short, it was a hot mess. When CP Mangold left last May, all we could do from that point forward was contain the damage, a responsibility we took very seriously.
I hope you can understand that in my 35 years of government experience, I have never had as harrowing an experience working with anyone as I did in 2014 and 2015. It is an experience I will never forget.
I would like to thank the residents from the bottom of my heart for electing Jack, Tina and Tom. They are the consummate professionals, qualified to do the job, and simply wonderful. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Respectfully,
CP Matters
CP Matters-
DeleteWith all due respect.
On November 5th, two days after the election, you and CP DiMartino were asked to consider amending the Langley budget by Jack Conway and Tom Grant in order for it to be increased to the tax cap. This happened during the George Phillips presentation of the Langley budget. I believe the Gadfly and/or Ms. Gadfly were also at that meeting. If not, I apologize, there were a number of people in attendance. Supervisor Langley was off licking his wounds after his 24% election day debacle and didn't show up. CP Malone said that he would be willing to vote to amend the Langley budget to the tax cap in order to provide the needed revenues to go towards the WWTP annual payments.
Bottom line, CP Matters and DiMartino chose to let the Langley budget stand without any explanation.
Sorry if these facts are now inconvenient to you CP Matters. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but facts are stubborn things.
1:10 p.m.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. Please understand that we certainly did not "choose" to let the Langley budget stand, we had no choice. Here's why...
CP Malone said that he would be willing to vote to amend the Langley budget, but that is unfortunately where it ended. With a badly beaten and bruised supervisor in office until December 31st and with no access to or cooperation from key personnel while the supervisor was still there, we, as part-time board members, were not able to accomplish much of anything much-less the monumental task of amending the supervisor's budget. Simply put, we could not get the data and information we needed to go to work amending the supervisor's budget when town hall was vitually shut down to us after the election. So, yes, CP Malone said he would be willing to vote to amend the budget but he did not say that he was willing to go to war with the supervisor's office to do it. We learned the hard way last year that without a dutiful, responsible, on-site supervisor, town business can come to a grinding halt and that is exactly what happened. Needless to say, with Jack, Tina and Tom in office, we are back in business thanks entirely to the incredibly smart voters who put them there.
3:14pm.
ReplyDeleteBoth then Deputy Supervisor/Finance Director Hart and Comptroller Phillips were available to help if you were really serious about the amendment to the Langley budget. All you had to do was ask them.
5:58 p.m. Even if your assertion is true, which it wasn't, there was zero chance that three part-time board members could come to a meeting of the minds about how to amend the budget in the time allotted. You're desperate to blame someone besides Langley but the blame is all his. From start to finish, he remained true to failing the residents of East Greenbush.
DeleteSo CP Matters, what you are saying in essence is that he quit the voters after he lost? Not that he ever did much anyways?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to say that I helped him win 4 years ago.
Yes, Jim. In fact, you can replace the question marks in your post with periods. And I'm sorry to say that I was fooled, too. Live and learn.
DeleteCP CiMartino says.....
ReplyDelete"Don, I"m fine with you posting the comments. You may copy and paste my response here. When Mary Ann and I were campaigning the number one concern we faced while going door to door was the enormous taxes people are paying in East Greenbush. So therefore, one of the issues I ran on was not raising taxes in East Greenbush and I still stand by that. The revenue gained by raising taxes would not be solely designated for the paying the first installment of the WWTP bill. Over time I have grown very thick skin because you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, unfortunately you just can't please everybody 100% of the time. I did in fact vote yes last year to raise the water and sewer rates but that Resolution was defeated. I seconded the the Resolution to do the study by Deleware Engineering on rate increases 3 times last year if that meant obtaining the increase the Town needed to raise the rates but, that also went down defeated. So here we are unfortunately in the same situation we were last year with no money put aside for this bill that's coming in the near future. My record is my record.
CP Dimartino,
DeleteThank you for doing your best it is much appreciated, and yes sometimes you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
From my perspective the taxes are high in EG. The thing that I think most of us feel is that we are paying high taxes and not getting a good return on our investment. In other words other communities get so much more with equal or even lesser taxes. Before someone says then move to those communities, I have 44 years invested in my town, and I;m not ready to give up on it yet.
I will also say I think you are part of the solution because you seem to care. Where as past administrations didn't seem to care. Such as when certain people decided to hand out stipends. That is just one example of a very long list of mismanagement examples.
This board has a chance to do something good for the town. I for understand that things may get worse before they get better.
CP Dimartino's candor is appreciated. Thank you for your forthright comments. It's refreshing.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm understanding CP DiMartino's response, I believe she is saying she will not vote to raise taxes under any circumstances. Same as Langley.
ReplyDeleteLet's be real, the ONLY reason Langley didn't raise rates is because he thought it would hurt his chance at reelection. What he never realized was his inability to take effective action on anything hurt his reelection. That and his utter disrespect shown not just to fellow colleagues, but to the very people who pay his salary.
DeleteI think you are missing the point. You can't just say we're raising taxes! There's a tremendous amount of work to process before you can make that statement! Thank God we have responsible and intelligent people in charge of our town. They will do what is necessary even if it will be unpleasant ! Give them a chance to see what they're dealing with, they just got in office in January
ReplyDeleteI just checked the assessment rolls and 1 Cooper AV is assessed as a two family home. Last sale date was 11/19/2013, sold for 140,000. Assessed for 176,300 .
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody know what happened at the ZBA meeting last night regarding Cooper Ave?
ReplyDeleteSorry Anonymous 8:24 PM, I was going to go, but something came up. Wish I could have made it though, especially since it sits right next to me.
ReplyDeleteAll the fuss and hoopla about 1 Cooper Ave and yet no one has answered my question about what happened at the ZBA meeting? Will this be like the stipends, the missing audit years, the paving of Thompson Hill Road, the du-quadplex, etc? Meaning the past is the past, just forget about it and move on.
ReplyDeleteAs the agenda said, the appeal for the use variance was withdrawn. As I understand it, an application for an area variance will be necessary. That will have to proceed according to law and regulation. No more wink-wink.
ReplyDeleteRemember this from a comment on Feb. 4th...
"The issue is more complicated than you might think at first glance. Langley made a deal to accept the pre-existing non-conforming use argument for the site and permitted Brian Hart to proceed without a use variance. This is why the use variance application is being withdrawn. In return, Brian Hart has to apply for an area variance because the footprint of the building exceeds the allowable size. The good news is that there will be a public hearing so Cooper Avenue can be commented upon on the record. The bad news is that the crux of the problem was that he didn't have (and shouldn't have been granted) a use variance."
Thank you. The best part is "no more wink-wink." It's amazing and wonderful how things have changed already. The big shot "players" who once had the town in a headlock have been shown the door. The spigot has been turned off and they are withering on the proverbial vine. And, Jack, once called "the kumbiya guy" is proving to be anything but. He stated at the pre-board meeting this month that EG will no longer be considered road kill for the vultures to feast on (or something like that.) He's clearly offended by anyone who tries to get one past the goalie (Note: he's the goalie). Yeah, he's the new guy but he wasn't born and raised in Pleasantville, USA. and he came to us accessorized with a really cool gavel! The rest of the board appears to take their jobs very seriously, as well, asking lots of hard questions and expecting honest, legitimate answers. It still feels like a dream come true.
ReplyDeleteThere will be an Ethic's Board workshop tomorrow evening at town hall. For more information, please go to the town website and read the supervisor's report. All are welcome.
ReplyDeleteI just can't get over how poorly the last administration ran our town. It's like they didn't even care. Thank goodness voters finally realized this. I give JTT a great deal of credit for at least trying to improve things. I also give JTT credit for attending public events and actually listening to what people have to say.
ReplyDeleteFrom the 2/16/16 Supervisor's Report
ReplyDelete"At the March Town Board meeting a public hearing will be scheduled on the rate increase. That hearing will be held before the April Town Board meeting and the rate increase will be passed at the May meeting."
just sayin' - done deal?!?!
There's a bill to be paid which was incurred by the Town on behalf of its citizens. I'd guess that the only open issue is the methodology used to raise the funds to service the debt.
DeleteBetween January and May the sewer districts and rates study could have been done. MAM said she had to table it last month because she could not get a second for it. Did CP DiMartino change her mind about that, too? She seconded it three times last year! I also distinctly remember Jack and Tom commenting last year that they were in favor of the study. I read the study proposal on the Truth blog. It seems like a lot needs to be done before they are in a position to start crunching numbers but it's not going to happen. They're just going to raise rates. Considering how much though, isn't a study warranted? Other towns have had them done, why not us? This deserves an explanation.
DeleteI don't believe it's a done deal by any means. It wouldn't surprise me a bit, if MAM is able to convince DTT to vote in favor of the study. It's the fair way to go.
Delete1:08 PM makes a great point. I'm not so sure there are the three votes on the town board needed to impose any rate increase without a study. It's also very popular that the public hearing might convince the entire town board to proceed with a study first and not rush into a rate increase without it. It seems to me the Supervisor might be counting his chickens before they are hatched.
ReplyDeleteGadfly, MAM is right. It doesn't make sense to increase the sewerage rates without a study. After all, you wouldn't buy a car without doing research about the options. MAM should sit down with Tina and Tom and even Deb to see how they feel about all of this. Why doesn't the Supervisor want a study?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how many "customers" there are roughly for sewer/water?
ReplyDeleteWho allowed the poison pill language saying that Delaware Engineering didn't want to do the study to be put in the MAM sewerage study resolution? Why would Delaware change its mind. Were they pressured to do so? Why not just do the study
ReplyDelete5:13 p.m. I asked MAM about that because that screwy language in her reso was completely contrary to its purpose, which was to get support for the study. She said the Comptroller added the language to her reso to justify his attestation. She said she was beyond furious when she discovered it after the Jan 20 board meeting. She said Jack was NOT aware of it until she brought it to his attention but he took full responsibility for not catching it before the agenda went out because he's the supervisor. In case anyone is wondering, that's why he publicly apologized to MA at the Feb pre-board meeting. Looks like the Comptroller waaay overstepped his bounds. Why would HE go so far to hurt passage of the study? Why would Delaware back away from their own proposal? Something isn't right here.
DeleteSo the Supervisor says the TB is going to pass the sewerage increases in May after the April Public Hearing? Did he come up with that analysis by looking into a crystal ball? There's no way they have already made their minds up. How insulting to Tina, Tom, Deb and Mary Ann to assume in February how they will vote in May.
ReplyDeleteThis is a GOOD supervisor. Unlike his predecessor, he will work with the board until they can come to agreement. The lack of support for the study is disappointing though especially since time is running out to wrap the cost of it into the loan for the WWTP upgrade. It needs further discussion.
DeleteWeekly update- Still no financial disclosure filing to the State Board of Elections by the East Greenbush Republican. Guess the Repubs must not be reading the Times Union about the recent activities of the Board of Elections enforcement unit.
ReplyDeleteSince their crushing loss on 11/3, are they even still functioning as a committee or have they disbanded? There might not be anyone there to do the work.
Delete12:53 You might be on to something. Anyone notice the obvious at last night's board meeting? Ed Gilbert wasn't there!! Looks like the whole miserable lot of them are shrinking into obscurity. Guess they'll have to find some other way to prey for the next many, many years. I thought there was something especially nice about that meeting. Now I know what it was.
DeleteLast night's board meeting was interesting. It showed that JT&T are not always going to walk in lockstep. The supr moved a resolution to pay a company that's suing our town $55,000 towards a bigger bill for their services.CP DiMartino seconded his reso. During the discussion period, CPs Matters and Grant voiced their issues with the payment and then to my surprise Grant, Matters and Tierney voted no! What this shows is that the we have independent thinkers on this board and that benefits the town the best. This is all very good.
ReplyDeleteDid the Town Attorney weigh in with a guiding opinion?
DeleteYes. He was supportive of paying the $55,000 now to avoid potential interest payments later but he's also not the attorney assigned to the case. The town hired special outside counsel for that.
DeleteTo: Anonymous- February 19, at 1:23 PM
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that town board didn't already get the legal opinion, prior to making that decision.
1:23 p.m. If I'm understanding your question correctly, we know for a fact that the TB got the legal opinion prior to making their decision because the town attorney gave it out loud at the pre-board meeting on 2/11. He said that it was best to pass the resolution so that the town could save interest on the $55,000 at a rate of 9% a year over the next two years. Then, depending on how the law suit works out, the town would have to pay interest on just the difference between $55,000 and $104,000, the amount for which the vendor is suing the town. So if the court decides the town owes $65,000 for the clean-up, the town would have to pay interest on $10,000 instead of the full $65,000. But CP Matters asked, what if our specially appointed outside counsel demonstrates that the town owes less than $55,000, would we get a refund back from the company? To that question, the town attorney responded no. CP Grant questioned the sensibility of relieving ourselves of that money before the lawsuit is decided and CP Matters was against spending money the town doesn't have and plummeting the general sewer fund into even a worse deficit than it's already in. CP Tierney did not give a reason for voting no.
ReplyDeleteThe Attorneys are there to give advice. The elected Members of the Town Board are the people charged with making the final decision. God Bless America!!!
ReplyDeleteAttorneys are human beings too who don't always have ALL the relevant facts and figures before they render their opinions and sometimes they even make the argument the person who signs their paycheck wants them to make to keep their appointed job. Always remember that lawyers are like statistics, you can work with them until they give you the results you want.
ReplyDeleteGadfly,there is a big sign in the window of Fiacco's liquor store on Rt 4 that says FOR RENT. Wonder what happened?
ReplyDeleteHe didn't get his liquor license.....yet.
Delete2:14pm, Keith Langley only got 24% of the vote on Election Day is what happened. With JTT and now even MAM and Deb, there are no longer special rules for connected people.
DeleteThat he got 24% of the vote is astounding. That 24% cared enough to vote but clearly not enough to pay attention to the performance of the incumbent candidate, and that is just unfortunate.
DeleteThe Langley, DeFruscio, Gilbert and Fiacco insiders club is now yesterday's news, thank goodness. The two year East Greenbush nightmare ended on January 1st.
ReplyDeleteIt is wonderful how things have changed. Who would have thought in their wildest dreams a new administration of elected officials who actually post job opportunities, all job opportunities, and allow people to interview and compete for them fair and square. We were promised the best people for the jobs, not continually recycled leftovers from prior failed administrations. This is a huge change from the way the insiders club used to operate. This never would have happened if not for JT&T. Kudos to them.
ReplyDelete7:37 It was really more like a 10 year East Greenbush nightmare but who's counting.
ReplyDeleteNo -- it is really 12 years if you count the 8 years of McCabe and the 4 of Langley. 12 years of deceit and mismanagement. National politics could use some advice from us on how to clean up government.
DeleteI think McCabe was in for six years. He served the last two years of Bob Angelini's term plus a four year term. Correct?
DeleteWe started this blog on March 27, 2012. Just checked the stats today and saw this:
ReplyDeletePageviews all time history 500,300.
Lots of those belong to McCabe's and Langley's constant checking, but I think others are reading too.
Thanks for reading.
I heard McCabe was utterly obsessed with the blogs, to the point of distraction. Not so sure about Langley but it's probable. He was obcessed with whether or not people would vote from him. On November 3rd of last year, he got his answer.
ReplyDelete