GRASSROOTS FOR GREENBURGH
E-Mail: grassrootsforgreenburgh@att.net
September 25, 2006
BERNSTEIN RESPONDS TO ROSENBERG
I was wondering how I should respond to Herb Rosenberg's personal attack on me, or whether I should even respond at all. [see: Dobbs Ferry Lawyer Comments on the Unincorporated Greenburgh/Village Controversy.] If it’s no secret, as Rosenberg suggests, that he's "assisting" the villages in Bernstein II, then why wouldn't he put his name on the court papers? Is it because, as SCOBA chair, his alignment with Feiner who appointed him might prejudice the villages’ application to intervene as a separate party, or is it because Rosenberg is afraid I might send to the Court the e-mails he sent to Feiner this past spring stating that "all of these issues [with respect to village taxation of town parks] can be made to disappear with a small amendment" to the Finneran Law -- a position which is contrary to the villages’ representation to the Court that the Finneran Law provides all the protection against town taxation that village residents need?
Rosenberg wraps himself in the SCOBA report and claims it is an "important and valuable document." Should I point out again that SCOBA got its facts wrong when it said most of G'burgh's parks were restricted in use to residents of unincorporated G'burgh, when in fact, as we all know, the only facilities that are restricted in use to unincorporated area residents are the pools at Veteran Park? Should I point out that when confronted with these facts, Rosenberg admitted he himself wrote that section of the report and did so based not on what the town's manual says, but on what he says someone from the parks department told him?
Should I point out again that SCOBA's preposterous assertion that the Town can lawfully discriminate against unincorporated area taxpayers by charging only them for town parks that receive federal funds finds no support in the text of the Finneran Law or its legislative history and, if believed, would turn the federal government’s anti-discrimination requirements on its head?
Should I point out again that Rosenberg is and never was a neutral here, that in November 2004, he tried to intervene in my appeal before the Appellate Division in support of the Town's position and that the Appellate Division returned his papers unopened and then ruled in my favor? Should I point out again that in January 2005, long before he became SCOBA chair, the Town included a Rosenberg affidavit in support of its unsuccessful arguments as to why Taxter Ridge should be paid for only by taxpayers in the unincorporated areas? Should I point out that when he became SCOBA chair, Rosenberg of all people refused to allow as members of the committee any civic association presidents because in his opinion they would be prejudiced against the villages?
Should I point out that the SCOBA committee never once met with me and therefore never had the benefit of any opposing points of view on the issues now before the Courts? Should I point out that by giving someone like Rosenberg a town-wide platform, Paul Feiner has done more damage to town-village relationships than anything I might have done by taking a legal position on behalf of the town's unincorporated areas that parks open town-wide should be paid for town-wide -- a position which so far has been upheld by the courts?
Or should I point out the obvious -- that there is a chance that Rosenberg might actually be wrong about the law -- and that by getting the villages to oppose any effort by the Town to negotiate a mediated settlement, which involves compromise by all sides, he may actually be doing far more harm to the interests of village taxpayers than might otherwise be the case?
Bob Bernstein