Vote early and vote often.
--Al Capone (1899 - 1947)
Those of you who have been watching from the sidelines as the Heaney/Nuzzi team has been trying to get themselves re-elected may have noticed that a small monkey wrench has been thrown into that particular plan. Nuzzi is not up for re-election this year but his boss, Heaney, is.
Against the backdrop of corruption and favors-for-votes, the local electorate has started to voice their objections to their business-as-usual. While the Southampton Press and Suffolk Life have started to retreat from their almost slobbering support of "Skip" Heaney, there is still some indecision about how to treat either Heaney or Kabot. One reason for that is the fact that while Heaney lost on the Republican line, he still garnered almost half of the vote and still may have Independent Party line. That may translate into "deals."
Knowing Heaney, as many people do, he is busy trying to buy a position with that electorate behind him.
What neither he nor the other Republicans know is -- what the segment of the rest of the local electorate will do come Election Day in November. Many, many people, especially local voters, have had quite enough of the party that Lincoln would throw-up over. He freed the slaves, the Southampton Republicans want to put the immigrants in jail along with property owners.
It is difficult to tell what the rest of the 20,000 or so registered voters will do, as against what the less than 3000 registered Republicans have already done on Primary Day.
With the election nearing in November, the big question is whether the rest of the voters' revulsion of the Republican Party mirrors the revolution in the Republican Party in general.
This is where the candidacy of Jim Henry becomes interesting.
Kabot is a Republican who ran successfully on the Integrity Party line, as did Nancy Graboski - since their own party - which attempted to ditch them in an aborted attempt to support Heaney, rejected them.
Disastrously, that did not work and the Chair of the Republican Party, Marcus Stinchi is starting to circulate his resume. His landscaping business is probably starting to look like a better alternative.
Kabot and Graboski were known to be rejecting the old-boy network and entrenched corruption of the Republican Party. Despite the currently weak musings of the Southampton Press and Suffolk Life (since they practically drooled in lockstop at Heaney's orders), the voters were able to see what was really going on. The fact that the "news" being reported was driven by ad sales that Heaney controlled through the Republican Party, was not lost on readers who have never had much of a choice when it comes to journalism.
The Town Board is currently a muddied waters of candidates at this point.
The Heaney forces, including Drew and Russo are not out but dampened - with Russo having the better chance.
Russo is a local boy in his thirties who is an A.D.A in the Town and who came out of nowhere after hanging his hat with the Party and Heaney. He did respectably well, but ran behind Graboski.
Anna Throne-Holst is entering the fray now and is one of several candidates who will vie for the two slots on the Board.
Although another slot would open up if Kabot were to win as Supervisor -- she could then could appoint another Board member - presumably, of her own liking.
Jim Henry enters the field now as the opposing candidate for Supervisor on the clearly defined Democratic line. While Kabot still has Heaney on her tail, she is now the Republican candidate as well as Integrity candidate.
Henry remains the Democrats choice.
Henry now comes out center stage to permit the voters a clear choice.
That choice appears to be corruption with Heaney, cleaner status quo with Kabot or a different direction with Henry.
The wild card in this election may not be a candidate but a voting block.
New Yorkers have been disenfranchised and have not weighed in on local politics so far. One, because they have not seen a need to do so.
Two, because they don't have the right to vote.
No candidate has seen fit to mention the elephant in the room.
The fact that there are slightly less than 6400 property owners, New Yorkers, who have homes in the Town of Southampton and who could be eligible to vote is a serious reality. This, of course, does not take into consideration the fact that in addition to that there are also many thousands of émigrés from Manhattan who got out of town right after 9/11 who never went back and others who just decided "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." One too many parking tickets while dropping your child off at school can do that.
While they are not seasoned locals, they bring New York values and a lot of political baggage. And, they are not happy about many things that have been going on.
And, one of the things that have been going on is the institutional racism that has now spilled over in a codified set of laws.
That, namely, is the new rental law which criminalizes the act of renting your house without a permit. Everyone, except local cops, firemen and other favorite people, faces fines of up to $15,000 PER VIOLATION if they do not register their house with the Town as of January 1st. The Town wants to know who is in your house, where they work, what their names are, personal information about them and wants the landlord to give the Code Enforcement Police free access whenever they feel like doing a search and seizure.
The Constitution has been suspended in Southampton Town.
They also want the right to arrest you if you don't give them this right.
Since national policy eliminating the rights of immigrants was a failure, the Republicans decided to create a law that could, de facto, accomplish what they wanted - with a badge and a gun. Only this time, they set it up so that they not only could they fine the property owners but could arrest the tenants and homeowners as well.
And, in the process they could milk the real estate industry. Brokers, agents, management companies, national real estate companies - anyone, and everyone associated with the possible finding of a home for "illegal immigrants." And, all of this has been done with the money from property taxes paid by YOU - to use against you.
Heaney, the Supervisor, Nuzzi, Town Board member from Crookhaven, were solidly for this bill which they introduced - and, in fact, pushed it down the throats of the Town Board. Heaney managed this by giving out Preservaton Fund money in places like Hampton Bays for school taxes. Money that was garnered from transfer taxes on real estate sales that was earmarked for the buying of land for open spaces to remain un-developed.
Russo is on board with Heaney and supports the rental law.
The question is, where does Kabot stand on this issue. She is quoted in Suffolk Life as saying that she is against "Vigilantism" but supports the law.
Graboski, now a Town Board member who is running for re-election voted for the rental law.
Anna Throne-Holst, candidate for Town Board was one of the few candidates who opposed this law at the hearing where it was passed.
Jim Henry is on record as opposing this law and clearly sees it as a thinly disguised form of discrimination.
It may be time for New Yorkers to register to vote in this election and make themselves heard. We will keep you informed on the candidates and the issues.
But vote. Register and vote. Do it now.
Download a voter registration form from www.countryvote.org and mail it in - and, to make the process easier, request an absentee ballot if you have to which allows you to vote from wherever you are as long as you are outside the limits of Suffolk County.
Show up and be counted.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
The Calm Before the Stormtroopers
What luck for rulers that men do not think.
--Adolf Hitler
Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
--Oscar Wilde
The perfect storm brewing in the Town of Southampton has three components that should upset everyone involved in this year's election for Supervisor and Town Board.
The inimitable style of current Supervisor "Skip" Heaney, who has until now escaped the attention of the New York City media - and instead has the attention and fawning fealty of the two major local publications like the Southampton Press and Suffolk Life - is finally managing this year to come into focus.
Why?
Because the combination of huge increases in property taxes; a Draconian rental law that threatens to imprison and fine rental property owners; and threats to the real estate industry in the Hamptons - have culminated in an election that previously would not have been so carefully watched.
The fact that slices of the tax assessed on all real estate transactions, used to fund the Peconic Preservation Fund (set aside to acquire land that will not be developed) - is being used for political purposes by Mr. Heaney -- is only part of the story. That particular ploy, of using money primarily gained from New Yorkers' investment property purchases, is only the tip of the iceberg.
He buys votes from heavily weighted voting communities like Hampton Bays - where bold ploys like promising them big school tax gifts from the Preservation Fund - and then he bites the hand that feeds him by aiming the gun barrel at property owners who pay the bills and the taxes in the first place.
Those whom Heaney has targeted are investors, New Yorkers, rental property owners, non-voting property owners, residents with rental properties, senior citizens with auxiliary apartments, single parents with income apartments or units, and real estate companies who rent or manage real estate for clients. The real estate companies, especially, are being targeted since it is the main business and source of income for the entire Hamptons economy. Sales agents, brokers and national real estate companies will now be the new cow which Heaney and Nuzzi will try to milk using Gestapo tactics.
In the attempt to retain control of the Town of Southampton, an acquiescent Town Board has passed a law that potentially targets everyone having anything to do with local real estate. That includes the Real Estate industry itself.
While companies like Corcoran are not yet feeling the heat, the new rental law is aimed at them just as seriously as it is at small local companies. Clearly Heaney and the Town are targeting smaller companies to test their strength before they work their way up the food chain.
The fees and fines, both civil and criminal, are aimed at milking the industry by making anyone and everyone involved in renting a property - the target of the Code Enforement Police in Southampton Town.
So, the assault on the Hamptons Real Estate industry may be underplayed by Heaney & Co., as the election rolls around but the effects of the new law going into effect on January 1st are unmistakable.
Real Estate agents and brokers, management companies that handle rental properties, individual owners, attorneys representing landlords or owners and other professionals that are associated with real estate will all be affected. Individuals will be targeted by the Storm Troopers - depending upon whether one is a friend of Heaney (a Code Enforcement hands-off) or a foe (no Get Out Of Jail Free card).
This is a law that aims to do two things:
A. to complete a campaign pledge to eliminate the "Latino problem" by fulfilling a promise to certain Conservative Republican supporters from his hometown in Hampton Bays (where he also has promised Peconic Preservation money), and;
B. raise significant amounts of money by taxing the real estate industry with the threat of criminal sanctions if they don't cooperate.
Here's how all of this works.
The illegal immigrants came to the Hamptons because of the need for cheap, pliable labor. Guatamalens, Equadorians, Costa Ricans, Mexicans, and other Latino workers do most of the landscaping and menial chore work in the Hamptons and need education, health care and housing.
But, housing in the Hamptons has never been cheap. For decades there have been discussions by local politicians about how to provide housing for local residents that they can afford.
The expedient political answer has always been simple - slow down multiple family projects until there's enough money under the table; and, make the zoning so difficult that developers throw their up hands and go away if they can't hire the right (nod-nod, wink-wink) local law firm to get the application approved - or pass enough money under the table at Town Hall.
Typically, multi-family housing projects are a three to five year pursuit - and that's just for the approval.
How successful has multi-family housing been? Most professionals don't remember the last apartment house being built in Southampton.
So, affordable housing has never been a realistic objective. If anything, it has been the source of graft -- but, never a source of housing.
The last lottery for inexpensive single family housing that was built -- mysteriously had a high number of winners who were related to the Supervisor.
The solution found by Latinos and other summer workers (as well as many Summer renters) in the expensive Hamptons housing market became the sharing of housing. People would share expenses and shelter and live as a family. It became the solution to the non-existent affordable housing situation in the Hamptons.
Many rented brand new homes or well-kept older homes. A few rented housing that needed work. Some properties actually needed repairs and maintainence work to be considered safe and habitable. Even fewer properties should not have been rented at all because of their condition.
However, there were laws on the books about noise, parking, garbage, illegal property conditions and zoning violations. These laws were selectively enforced but took too much time to rectify because the Code Enforcement Officers were too busy operating on a "Targeting" agenda. Since Code Enforcement was always a political unit, there was never a need to hire enough people to actually check property and issue notices to correct problems. It was always a unit used to target people, not correct problems. Notices were never used -- only criminal summonses were issued. Get the point?
The Code Enforcement Police were mainly used to target political enemies of Heaney and to satisfy people who wanted Latinos or Summer renters removed from their neighborhood. Proper notification of problems legitimately needing to be corrected and enforcement of the laws on the books took too long and was messy. The dubious constitutionality of targeting certain groups like Gays, Jews, Latinos or Blacks was always a contributing agenda. Which brings us to the situation at hand.
The Final Solution became the Heany-Nuzzi plan to additionallly target the Real Estate industry in order to make everyone involved in the housing process a likely target of criminal prosecution - and FINES. Really BIG fines.
Investigations have shown that the initial phase of that plan is already being implemented. Certain small real estate companies in the Hamptons are now being targeted by the Code Enforcement Police as Heany nibbles at the edges of where the money comes from. The new rental law which allows searches and seizures, warrants and arrests and multiple court appearances with heavy fines is the culmination of the assault on Latinos and on the Real Estate industry. Always follow the money.
Real Estate agents and brokers are now being named in criminal summonses and must appear in court under threat of arrest - if Heaney & Co. suspects that Latinos, Summer people, Gays, Jews, or Blacks are gaining access to housing in areas where his political cronies live. Shades of Guantanamo Bay?
These are the initial moves which has now been signed into law -- before they climb up the food chain of the Real Estate world to where the big money is located. With fines of $3,000 to $8,000 and much higher per violation, per property - you can see the handwriting on the wall.
Napoleon used to conquer for the specific purpose of pillaging and expropriating money to shore up the bankrupt French Republic. It's the same plan -- using the Latinos as an excuse to invade and holding property owners as the hostages.
The fact that this law would all but exempt certain kinds of local fire, police and EMS workers - by virtually eliminating fines to them for their rental property violations - only shows who this vote-getting ploy is really aimed at--non-resident property owners, New Yorkers, Real Estate brokers and agents -- and professionals in the Real Estate industry. In other words - where the money comes from that funds the entire East End.
This law is unconstitutional and it is an illegal and disgraceful example of anti-Latino, anti-Gay, anti-Black, anti-New Yorker, anti-Real Estate industry vote-getting. But, Heaney and Nuzzi have manipulated the local media into making people believe that they are concerned with the welfare of the people they are actually attacking. The ploy is that this law is about protecting tenants from unscrupulous landlords -- you know, those people who rent houses below THEIR cost in an area that will not permit multi-family housing to be built.
It is also a poorly kept secret that the Town sanctioned Section 8 program provides below market income for properties, provides no protection to landlords and often leaves the property destroyed by the tenants who had no investment in the property they occupied.
Heaney and Nuzzi claim that this law is meant to protect poor working people who have rented substandard housing. Do you understand this? Let's review this again.
After running on a campaign pledge which screams out that they will rid the Hamptons of Latinos (illegal immigrants is the buzzword)-- he wants to pass a law to PROTECT THEM! How? By attacking landlords who rent to them.
He'd just as soon kill them - as Police already have done in Quogue.
And, how many Blacks, Latinos, Lesbians or Gays (out of the closet) have jobs at Town Hall or in the Republican Party folks?
Remember, Heaney and Nuzzi are no longer of the party of Lincoln - they are from the party of Senator Craig.
And, now folks if you own property in the Hamptons -- they're coming after YOU -- unless you pay them!
Heaney was investigated for an illegal approval on the Town Board for a cell tower a few years ago. The cash was found on the front seat of a car.
Now, in Town Hall, they want it in the form of a check made out to the Republican Party.
That's how business is now done in the Hamptons. And, if you own property, you're involved whether you like it or not.
--Adolf Hitler
Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
--Oscar Wilde
The perfect storm brewing in the Town of Southampton has three components that should upset everyone involved in this year's election for Supervisor and Town Board.
The inimitable style of current Supervisor "Skip" Heaney, who has until now escaped the attention of the New York City media - and instead has the attention and fawning fealty of the two major local publications like the Southampton Press and Suffolk Life - is finally managing this year to come into focus.
Why?
Because the combination of huge increases in property taxes; a Draconian rental law that threatens to imprison and fine rental property owners; and threats to the real estate industry in the Hamptons - have culminated in an election that previously would not have been so carefully watched.
The fact that slices of the tax assessed on all real estate transactions, used to fund the Peconic Preservation Fund (set aside to acquire land that will not be developed) - is being used for political purposes by Mr. Heaney -- is only part of the story. That particular ploy, of using money primarily gained from New Yorkers' investment property purchases, is only the tip of the iceberg.
He buys votes from heavily weighted voting communities like Hampton Bays - where bold ploys like promising them big school tax gifts from the Preservation Fund - and then he bites the hand that feeds him by aiming the gun barrel at property owners who pay the bills and the taxes in the first place.
Those whom Heaney has targeted are investors, New Yorkers, rental property owners, non-voting property owners, residents with rental properties, senior citizens with auxiliary apartments, single parents with income apartments or units, and real estate companies who rent or manage real estate for clients. The real estate companies, especially, are being targeted since it is the main business and source of income for the entire Hamptons economy. Sales agents, brokers and national real estate companies will now be the new cow which Heaney and Nuzzi will try to milk using Gestapo tactics.
In the attempt to retain control of the Town of Southampton, an acquiescent Town Board has passed a law that potentially targets everyone having anything to do with local real estate. That includes the Real Estate industry itself.
While companies like Corcoran are not yet feeling the heat, the new rental law is aimed at them just as seriously as it is at small local companies. Clearly Heaney and the Town are targeting smaller companies to test their strength before they work their way up the food chain.
The fees and fines, both civil and criminal, are aimed at milking the industry by making anyone and everyone involved in renting a property - the target of the Code Enforement Police in Southampton Town.
So, the assault on the Hamptons Real Estate industry may be underplayed by Heaney & Co., as the election rolls around but the effects of the new law going into effect on January 1st are unmistakable.
Real Estate agents and brokers, management companies that handle rental properties, individual owners, attorneys representing landlords or owners and other professionals that are associated with real estate will all be affected. Individuals will be targeted by the Storm Troopers - depending upon whether one is a friend of Heaney (a Code Enforcement hands-off) or a foe (no Get Out Of Jail Free card).
This is a law that aims to do two things:
A. to complete a campaign pledge to eliminate the "Latino problem" by fulfilling a promise to certain Conservative Republican supporters from his hometown in Hampton Bays (where he also has promised Peconic Preservation money), and;
B. raise significant amounts of money by taxing the real estate industry with the threat of criminal sanctions if they don't cooperate.
Here's how all of this works.
The illegal immigrants came to the Hamptons because of the need for cheap, pliable labor. Guatamalens, Equadorians, Costa Ricans, Mexicans, and other Latino workers do most of the landscaping and menial chore work in the Hamptons and need education, health care and housing.
But, housing in the Hamptons has never been cheap. For decades there have been discussions by local politicians about how to provide housing for local residents that they can afford.
The expedient political answer has always been simple - slow down multiple family projects until there's enough money under the table; and, make the zoning so difficult that developers throw their up hands and go away if they can't hire the right (nod-nod, wink-wink) local law firm to get the application approved - or pass enough money under the table at Town Hall.
Typically, multi-family housing projects are a three to five year pursuit - and that's just for the approval.
How successful has multi-family housing been? Most professionals don't remember the last apartment house being built in Southampton.
So, affordable housing has never been a realistic objective. If anything, it has been the source of graft -- but, never a source of housing.
The last lottery for inexpensive single family housing that was built -- mysteriously had a high number of winners who were related to the Supervisor.
The solution found by Latinos and other summer workers (as well as many Summer renters) in the expensive Hamptons housing market became the sharing of housing. People would share expenses and shelter and live as a family. It became the solution to the non-existent affordable housing situation in the Hamptons.
Many rented brand new homes or well-kept older homes. A few rented housing that needed work. Some properties actually needed repairs and maintainence work to be considered safe and habitable. Even fewer properties should not have been rented at all because of their condition.
However, there were laws on the books about noise, parking, garbage, illegal property conditions and zoning violations. These laws were selectively enforced but took too much time to rectify because the Code Enforcement Officers were too busy operating on a "Targeting" agenda. Since Code Enforcement was always a political unit, there was never a need to hire enough people to actually check property and issue notices to correct problems. It was always a unit used to target people, not correct problems. Notices were never used -- only criminal summonses were issued. Get the point?
The Code Enforcement Police were mainly used to target political enemies of Heaney and to satisfy people who wanted Latinos or Summer renters removed from their neighborhood. Proper notification of problems legitimately needing to be corrected and enforcement of the laws on the books took too long and was messy. The dubious constitutionality of targeting certain groups like Gays, Jews, Latinos or Blacks was always a contributing agenda. Which brings us to the situation at hand.
The Final Solution became the Heany-Nuzzi plan to additionallly target the Real Estate industry in order to make everyone involved in the housing process a likely target of criminal prosecution - and FINES. Really BIG fines.
Investigations have shown that the initial phase of that plan is already being implemented. Certain small real estate companies in the Hamptons are now being targeted by the Code Enforcement Police as Heany nibbles at the edges of where the money comes from. The new rental law which allows searches and seizures, warrants and arrests and multiple court appearances with heavy fines is the culmination of the assault on Latinos and on the Real Estate industry. Always follow the money.
Real Estate agents and brokers are now being named in criminal summonses and must appear in court under threat of arrest - if Heaney & Co. suspects that Latinos, Summer people, Gays, Jews, or Blacks are gaining access to housing in areas where his political cronies live. Shades of Guantanamo Bay?
These are the initial moves which has now been signed into law -- before they climb up the food chain of the Real Estate world to where the big money is located. With fines of $3,000 to $8,000 and much higher per violation, per property - you can see the handwriting on the wall.
Napoleon used to conquer for the specific purpose of pillaging and expropriating money to shore up the bankrupt French Republic. It's the same plan -- using the Latinos as an excuse to invade and holding property owners as the hostages.
The fact that this law would all but exempt certain kinds of local fire, police and EMS workers - by virtually eliminating fines to them for their rental property violations - only shows who this vote-getting ploy is really aimed at--non-resident property owners, New Yorkers, Real Estate brokers and agents -- and professionals in the Real Estate industry. In other words - where the money comes from that funds the entire East End.
This law is unconstitutional and it is an illegal and disgraceful example of anti-Latino, anti-Gay, anti-Black, anti-New Yorker, anti-Real Estate industry vote-getting. But, Heaney and Nuzzi have manipulated the local media into making people believe that they are concerned with the welfare of the people they are actually attacking. The ploy is that this law is about protecting tenants from unscrupulous landlords -- you know, those people who rent houses below THEIR cost in an area that will not permit multi-family housing to be built.
It is also a poorly kept secret that the Town sanctioned Section 8 program provides below market income for properties, provides no protection to landlords and often leaves the property destroyed by the tenants who had no investment in the property they occupied.
Heaney and Nuzzi claim that this law is meant to protect poor working people who have rented substandard housing. Do you understand this? Let's review this again.
After running on a campaign pledge which screams out that they will rid the Hamptons of Latinos (illegal immigrants is the buzzword)-- he wants to pass a law to PROTECT THEM! How? By attacking landlords who rent to them.
He'd just as soon kill them - as Police already have done in Quogue.
And, how many Blacks, Latinos, Lesbians or Gays (out of the closet) have jobs at Town Hall or in the Republican Party folks?
Remember, Heaney and Nuzzi are no longer of the party of Lincoln - they are from the party of Senator Craig.
And, now folks if you own property in the Hamptons -- they're coming after YOU -- unless you pay them!
Heaney was investigated for an illegal approval on the Town Board for a cell tower a few years ago. The cash was found on the front seat of a car.
Now, in Town Hall, they want it in the form of a check made out to the Republican Party.
That's how business is now done in the Hamptons. And, if you own property, you're involved whether you like it or not.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Good Ground or Good Graft?
"Crime does not pay...as well as politics."
--Alfred E. Newman
"There’s Good Graft and Bad Graft"
--George Washington Plunkitt III
For those of you in Manhattan who have been successfully avoiding Hamptons politics, the local race for Supervisor of Southampton Town should be of some concern to you this year. If you are a resident of the Hamptons you should be even more concerned. Here’s why:
The players are these: The Supervisor (head guy) “Skip” Heaney and the four Town Board members run the Town of Southampton: Remsenberg, Westhampton, East Quogue, Quogue, Hampton Bays, Southampton, Water Mill and Bridgehampton. The current Town Board members are Linda Kabot, Steve Kenney, Chris Nuzzi and Nancy Graboski. Heaney is running for re-election as Supervisor, Kabot is challenging Heaney, Graboski is running again for Town Board, and Kenny is term-limited out.
What was once a relatively cohesive Board is now engaged in political warring. The basic antipathy seems clearly to be Ethics and the voice for women in politics – versus – the Old boy network and political graft.
Its Linda Kabot and Nancy Graboski against the Heaney, Nuzzi and Russo crowd.
If Heaney wins, if Russo wins, if Graboski loses, if Kabot loses – women lose, New Yorkers lose, and good government loses.
Linda Kabot, Town Councilmember is challenging the sitting Supervisor “Skip” Heaney partly due to the fact that he has been importing talent from up island (where he himself came from a decade or so back) in an attempt to continue his reign after political death in two years. He’s term limited and this November is his last election – which, if he wins, will give him his last two more years in office.
Kabot, a local woman originally from Westhampton Beach is known to be tired of the payoffs, highway contracts for votes, Preservation Fund deals, maneuvering to continue his political hold on power, and Heaney’s abusiveness behind closed doors. Heaney has been called a master of dirty tricks and known to be especially abusive towards female politicians when the press is not around. In public, innuendos are the preferred form of belittlement. The Southampton Press eats it up – as does Suffolk Life – following his entrails waiting for bits of PR to report. Sometimes they create “news” to help him out.
While Kabot’s Primary challenge of Heaney is a difficult one, she is a well-respected local politician and resents Heaney’s importation of Nuzzi from the neighboring Town of Brookhaven where political scandals have sent the rats looking for dryer ground – like Good Ground (a local term for Hampton Bays). They didn’t call it Crookhaven for nothing.
Both Heaney and Nuzzi have teamed up for the purpose of coordinating the continuing takeover of Southampton from out of the area politicos. One of their hallmark stunts, my Manhattan friends, has been to turn the illegal immigrant controversy into political hay and to continue the importation of talent that would keep Heaney in power after his term expires – and also create an out of town Putsch that would keep their hands on the money and power. In other words, folks, control of fundraising through contracts and power over Hamptons real estate and its industry.
So, how to do that? Well, for one thing there’s the recent passage of Heaney’s new rental law, (Resolution 2007-1184) which eliminates the existing group rental law, formerly euphemistically known as the Summer Rental Permit law. That law will now be replaced with one that requires all houses to be registered – permitting Code Enforcement Officers to inspect every house in the Town.
For what purpose, you say?
Well, to make you safe, silly! And, to know who is in that house. Didn't you know that in Southampton, the next best thing to video cameras operated by the government in your house -- is to require that you tell them who is living there?
Naturally, the law is not intended to do the work of Big Brother looking for Latinos, Gays, Blacks or summer people. It’s certainly not intended to fine or otherwise harass property owners who may rent to such "undesirables" – which would conveniently permit the sympathetic Code Enforcement Officers to enter your home without a warrant to help you find violations.
No, that couldn’t be the reason, could it?
Anna Throne-Holst, one of the candidates for Town Board, who is on to the real reason for the rental law, spoke up at the hearing which reminded some of the old days in Salem. She was clearly aware of the real intention of Heaney's boys.
As one insider said of Throne-Holst, "I guess Anna's strongest characteristic is her refusal to compromise her principles even for the sake of political gain. I was very impressed that she attended the town board meeting in which the rabble demanded the ill conceived rental law be passed. Anna made no bones about her opposition, but did it an non-confrontational way. She even took aside the leading supporter of the bill, a virulent anti-illegal immigrant proponent and engaged her in a conversation regarding the faults of the overwhelmingly passed bill."
Considering the fact that there is no such thing as a house that could survive a violation search by someone who wants to find a problem, any problem – this is, by any standards, an offer that any property owner cannot refuse -- to have one’s constitutional rights violated. The ostensible reason for the law is to make the people who they have been trying to run out of town -- safer. Do they think we are all -- local residents and New Yorkers alike -- stupid?
That's like protecting your friend by shooting him rather than taking him to the doctor because he's in pain.
Whether you speak Spanish or not.
Heaney and Nuzzi have found a solution to their three major problems. How to keep the New Yorkers under thumb and docile by threatening their ability to pay for investment property with big mortgages; how to deflect everyone's anger at the outrageous increase in property taxes; and how to avoid the criticism for doing nothing about affordable housing for local residents. They have managed to use local sympathy for "undesirables" in the Town – to craft an unconstitutional answer to the waning of the Republican Party and Heaney’s dwindling political career. And, they don't care at whose expense they do it.
When the waves of property being sold really hits the local Hamptons market -- due to the horrendous tax increases and unrentable houses -- it will become apparent to New Yorkers and local Hampton residents just how bad Heaney is for everyone's pocket book.
Heaney & Company have turned the local voters attention away from the non-existent affordable housing. A campaign pledge to provide homes for the residents who cannot afford to live here is a failed promise – so, let’s go after property owners from New York and force the Guatemalans out of their rentals.
What no one wants to admit is the fact that most new investment properties are difficult to afford, even by the owners. The old rental formulas don't work. So, by offering property at less than their owners cost, investors have been creating the only new affordable rental market in the Hamptons. They have been subsidizing the Town's housing stock by supporting large mortgages in the hopes of future gain by appreciation. These are the so-called "slumlords" that Heaney is targeting. Let's kill affordable housing and then let's kill off the people who are really providing it -- that's the Heaney approach. The inferior housing (ostensible reason for the new rental law)-- which are inhabited by people they would like to kill or deport, are exaggerated for the Press and by the Press to get votes from people who don't want Latinos living next door.
So far, Heaney's boys have accomplished their mission without most women voters realizing that they are being governed by misogynistic politicians who are opposed to good government. Ask Linda Kabot, or Nancy Graboski how civil Heaney is to women outside of the Press room.
But, hey, so what? Twenty or Thirty-Somethings are not my problem and as far as the Latinos, Blacks and Gays – I’ll get a different landscaper or Interior Designer. I’ll bring my own help from New York. Or, I'll do it myself.
Well, aside from being far from PC, there are a few other little problems.
Since media coverage of these local antics is practically non-existent in the Hamptons, here are some useful pieces of information –
Nancy Graboski, member of the Town Board was a good Republican but exposed the fact that a local builder, Mr. Zizzi, perhaps should not have been deciding who gets variances while simultaneously accepting contracts to build houses locally -- from people who appeared in front of his Town committee for favorable rulings. Graboski was, and is, a successful Republican Town Board member and, as unheard of as it was, – Marcus Stinchi, the Republican Party Chair (a local landscaper), who takes his orders from Heaney, -- bumped her from the ticket.
Fortunately, Graboski also has a line on the Integrity Party – a new political party that supports individual initiative and ethics in local government.
More talent was been imported by Heaney (Russo) from the Suffolk D.A.’s Office to round out the up-Island transition team to keep his influence flowing. It is widely anticipated that Nuzzi is Heaney’s bet for Supervisor in two years – with Russo backing him up. This way, Heaney’s in power and Nuzzi’s on the Board with Russo backing them up – and these numbers would control the Board. It also doesn’t hurt that Russo is one of D.A. Spota’s A.D.A’s to round out the law and order patina. Suffolk County is big on cops and prosecutors.
Graboski, however, like Kabot, is very popular. The fact that Heaney has been putting down the women candidates – by belittling them in private and demoting them in public does not play well with female voters -- even in Hampton Bays.
But Heaney & Company can’t really control their behavior since it is an integral part of the Old Boy network psychology. Bring in the Boys from up the island, keep down the locals, threaten the New Yorkers financially and, especially, subjugate the women. And, of course, charge it to the New Yorkers while you terrorize them where it hurts – in the real estate.
This brings us to the new PILOT plan. With the help of Assemblyman Thiele (who instituted the 2% transfer tax on real estate for open land purchases), money from the Preservation Fund can now be stolen from its intended use and openly used for political graft and vote buying.
The Fund was originally intended to buy land so that it remained vacant. Not a bad idea. The Fund generates nearly $100 million in transfer taxes – paid for primarily by New Yorkers who buy vacation homes in the Hamptons.
Real Estate pays for the property taxes that funds most of the government and the Preservation Fund pays for land purchases. Most of it is used at the discretion of the government in power – or, in this case, Heaney & Co. and it is really used to buy cooperation, favors and VOTES. Heaney could care less about the land as long as it benefits Hampton Bays or buy votes or favors elsewhere.
To Wit – The PILOT plan allows money from the Preservation Fund to be siphoned off for other uses – in this case School Taxes.
So what does that have to do with votes?
Well, in the Southampton Press, the official Republican Party Town organ recently (8/23/07) displayed a photo of Heaney and Nuzzi on the cover with a giant check from the Town of Southampton Preservation Fund written to the “Hampton Bays Taxpayers.”
Hampton Bays happens to be the largest voting block in Southampton Town. Hampton Bays gets a $1.5 million gift for local schools. Heaney and Nuzzi are handing the gift to the Hampton Bays School.
Kabot is challenging Heaney in a Republican primary for the first time. The Primary is on September 18th and the Southampton Press headline reads: "Financial Windfall for Hampton Bays." It's like a front page ad in the Southampton Press for Heaney.
The Hampton Bays vote usually decides the election – and, in this case Heaney is betting (Preservation Fund money) YOUR MONEY, that this will swing the Primary and the General Election vote his way. Nothing like buying the vote with the New Yorker’s and homeowner’s money – especially, since he plans on screwing them again once in office for another two years, and perhaps beyond that through his clones Nuzzi and Russo. Remember, New Yorker's can't vote -- even though it's their money paying for all of this. Remember the Boston Tea Party?
It's no surprise that the other Board members knew nothing of this press conference – or that even Fred Thiele explained that this PILOT program was not yet approved (but now will be by the Town Board through the intimidation of lost votes if they don’t).
Thiele professed ignorance of this ploy, along with the news conference which conveniently left Kabot and Graboski out of the loop but found a Southampton Press reporter right down the block. How do those guys from the Southampton Press -- along with a photographer -- always know just where to be to get their scoops?
This little media stunt clearly indicates that the Southampton Press is blatantly in Heaney’s pocket – along with the other major "news source" (Suffolk Life), whose publisher's son, Dave Wilmot,Jr., happens to be Heaney’s campaign manager. Talk about an independent media in the Hamptons?
Get ready for more “soldiers” from up the island imported to continue Heaney’s reign.
Get ready for more raiding of the Preservation Fund to support political games so that your tax money keeps the Emperor, Heaney, in office.
Get ready for the renewed subordination of women until this regime of good ‘old boys running Southampton Town.
And, get ready for the rental law witch-hunts, which will trample on the Constitution and make Kristalnacht looks like mischief on Prom Night at the local high school.
All the while, the Storm Troopers will be breaking into houses, eliminating the rental property market, raising taxes and flooding the market with unaffordable housing for sale.
This is the solution to the Latinos, affordable housing, equality for women, and the control and destruction of the real estate market in the Hamptons. Elect Skip Heaney!
And they’re going to do it with your money.
--Alfred E. Newman
"There’s Good Graft and Bad Graft"
--George Washington Plunkitt III
For those of you in Manhattan who have been successfully avoiding Hamptons politics, the local race for Supervisor of Southampton Town should be of some concern to you this year. If you are a resident of the Hamptons you should be even more concerned. Here’s why:
The players are these: The Supervisor (head guy) “Skip” Heaney and the four Town Board members run the Town of Southampton: Remsenberg, Westhampton, East Quogue, Quogue, Hampton Bays, Southampton, Water Mill and Bridgehampton. The current Town Board members are Linda Kabot, Steve Kenney, Chris Nuzzi and Nancy Graboski. Heaney is running for re-election as Supervisor, Kabot is challenging Heaney, Graboski is running again for Town Board, and Kenny is term-limited out.
What was once a relatively cohesive Board is now engaged in political warring. The basic antipathy seems clearly to be Ethics and the voice for women in politics – versus – the Old boy network and political graft.
Its Linda Kabot and Nancy Graboski against the Heaney, Nuzzi and Russo crowd.
If Heaney wins, if Russo wins, if Graboski loses, if Kabot loses – women lose, New Yorkers lose, and good government loses.
Linda Kabot, Town Councilmember is challenging the sitting Supervisor “Skip” Heaney partly due to the fact that he has been importing talent from up island (where he himself came from a decade or so back) in an attempt to continue his reign after political death in two years. He’s term limited and this November is his last election – which, if he wins, will give him his last two more years in office.
Kabot, a local woman originally from Westhampton Beach is known to be tired of the payoffs, highway contracts for votes, Preservation Fund deals, maneuvering to continue his political hold on power, and Heaney’s abusiveness behind closed doors. Heaney has been called a master of dirty tricks and known to be especially abusive towards female politicians when the press is not around. In public, innuendos are the preferred form of belittlement. The Southampton Press eats it up – as does Suffolk Life – following his entrails waiting for bits of PR to report. Sometimes they create “news” to help him out.
While Kabot’s Primary challenge of Heaney is a difficult one, she is a well-respected local politician and resents Heaney’s importation of Nuzzi from the neighboring Town of Brookhaven where political scandals have sent the rats looking for dryer ground – like Good Ground (a local term for Hampton Bays). They didn’t call it Crookhaven for nothing.
Both Heaney and Nuzzi have teamed up for the purpose of coordinating the continuing takeover of Southampton from out of the area politicos. One of their hallmark stunts, my Manhattan friends, has been to turn the illegal immigrant controversy into political hay and to continue the importation of talent that would keep Heaney in power after his term expires – and also create an out of town Putsch that would keep their hands on the money and power. In other words, folks, control of fundraising through contracts and power over Hamptons real estate and its industry.
So, how to do that? Well, for one thing there’s the recent passage of Heaney’s new rental law, (Resolution 2007-1184) which eliminates the existing group rental law, formerly euphemistically known as the Summer Rental Permit law. That law will now be replaced with one that requires all houses to be registered – permitting Code Enforcement Officers to inspect every house in the Town.
For what purpose, you say?
Well, to make you safe, silly! And, to know who is in that house. Didn't you know that in Southampton, the next best thing to video cameras operated by the government in your house -- is to require that you tell them who is living there?
Naturally, the law is not intended to do the work of Big Brother looking for Latinos, Gays, Blacks or summer people. It’s certainly not intended to fine or otherwise harass property owners who may rent to such "undesirables" – which would conveniently permit the sympathetic Code Enforcement Officers to enter your home without a warrant to help you find violations.
No, that couldn’t be the reason, could it?
Anna Throne-Holst, one of the candidates for Town Board, who is on to the real reason for the rental law, spoke up at the hearing which reminded some of the old days in Salem. She was clearly aware of the real intention of Heaney's boys.
As one insider said of Throne-Holst, "I guess Anna's strongest characteristic is her refusal to compromise her principles even for the sake of political gain. I was very impressed that she attended the town board meeting in which the rabble demanded the ill conceived rental law be passed. Anna made no bones about her opposition, but did it an non-confrontational way. She even took aside the leading supporter of the bill, a virulent anti-illegal immigrant proponent and engaged her in a conversation regarding the faults of the overwhelmingly passed bill."
Considering the fact that there is no such thing as a house that could survive a violation search by someone who wants to find a problem, any problem – this is, by any standards, an offer that any property owner cannot refuse -- to have one’s constitutional rights violated. The ostensible reason for the law is to make the people who they have been trying to run out of town -- safer. Do they think we are all -- local residents and New Yorkers alike -- stupid?
That's like protecting your friend by shooting him rather than taking him to the doctor because he's in pain.
Whether you speak Spanish or not.
Heaney and Nuzzi have found a solution to their three major problems. How to keep the New Yorkers under thumb and docile by threatening their ability to pay for investment property with big mortgages; how to deflect everyone's anger at the outrageous increase in property taxes; and how to avoid the criticism for doing nothing about affordable housing for local residents. They have managed to use local sympathy for "undesirables" in the Town – to craft an unconstitutional answer to the waning of the Republican Party and Heaney’s dwindling political career. And, they don't care at whose expense they do it.
When the waves of property being sold really hits the local Hamptons market -- due to the horrendous tax increases and unrentable houses -- it will become apparent to New Yorkers and local Hampton residents just how bad Heaney is for everyone's pocket book.
Heaney & Company have turned the local voters attention away from the non-existent affordable housing. A campaign pledge to provide homes for the residents who cannot afford to live here is a failed promise – so, let’s go after property owners from New York and force the Guatemalans out of their rentals.
What no one wants to admit is the fact that most new investment properties are difficult to afford, even by the owners. The old rental formulas don't work. So, by offering property at less than their owners cost, investors have been creating the only new affordable rental market in the Hamptons. They have been subsidizing the Town's housing stock by supporting large mortgages in the hopes of future gain by appreciation. These are the so-called "slumlords" that Heaney is targeting. Let's kill affordable housing and then let's kill off the people who are really providing it -- that's the Heaney approach. The inferior housing (ostensible reason for the new rental law)-- which are inhabited by people they would like to kill or deport, are exaggerated for the Press and by the Press to get votes from people who don't want Latinos living next door.
So far, Heaney's boys have accomplished their mission without most women voters realizing that they are being governed by misogynistic politicians who are opposed to good government. Ask Linda Kabot, or Nancy Graboski how civil Heaney is to women outside of the Press room.
But, hey, so what? Twenty or Thirty-Somethings are not my problem and as far as the Latinos, Blacks and Gays – I’ll get a different landscaper or Interior Designer. I’ll bring my own help from New York. Or, I'll do it myself.
Well, aside from being far from PC, there are a few other little problems.
Since media coverage of these local antics is practically non-existent in the Hamptons, here are some useful pieces of information –
Nancy Graboski, member of the Town Board was a good Republican but exposed the fact that a local builder, Mr. Zizzi, perhaps should not have been deciding who gets variances while simultaneously accepting contracts to build houses locally -- from people who appeared in front of his Town committee for favorable rulings. Graboski was, and is, a successful Republican Town Board member and, as unheard of as it was, – Marcus Stinchi, the Republican Party Chair (a local landscaper), who takes his orders from Heaney, -- bumped her from the ticket.
Fortunately, Graboski also has a line on the Integrity Party – a new political party that supports individual initiative and ethics in local government.
More talent was been imported by Heaney (Russo) from the Suffolk D.A.’s Office to round out the up-Island transition team to keep his influence flowing. It is widely anticipated that Nuzzi is Heaney’s bet for Supervisor in two years – with Russo backing him up. This way, Heaney’s in power and Nuzzi’s on the Board with Russo backing them up – and these numbers would control the Board. It also doesn’t hurt that Russo is one of D.A. Spota’s A.D.A’s to round out the law and order patina. Suffolk County is big on cops and prosecutors.
Graboski, however, like Kabot, is very popular. The fact that Heaney has been putting down the women candidates – by belittling them in private and demoting them in public does not play well with female voters -- even in Hampton Bays.
But Heaney & Company can’t really control their behavior since it is an integral part of the Old Boy network psychology. Bring in the Boys from up the island, keep down the locals, threaten the New Yorkers financially and, especially, subjugate the women. And, of course, charge it to the New Yorkers while you terrorize them where it hurts – in the real estate.
This brings us to the new PILOT plan. With the help of Assemblyman Thiele (who instituted the 2% transfer tax on real estate for open land purchases), money from the Preservation Fund can now be stolen from its intended use and openly used for political graft and vote buying.
The Fund was originally intended to buy land so that it remained vacant. Not a bad idea. The Fund generates nearly $100 million in transfer taxes – paid for primarily by New Yorkers who buy vacation homes in the Hamptons.
Real Estate pays for the property taxes that funds most of the government and the Preservation Fund pays for land purchases. Most of it is used at the discretion of the government in power – or, in this case, Heaney & Co. and it is really used to buy cooperation, favors and VOTES. Heaney could care less about the land as long as it benefits Hampton Bays or buy votes or favors elsewhere.
To Wit – The PILOT plan allows money from the Preservation Fund to be siphoned off for other uses – in this case School Taxes.
So what does that have to do with votes?
Well, in the Southampton Press, the official Republican Party Town organ recently (8/23/07) displayed a photo of Heaney and Nuzzi on the cover with a giant check from the Town of Southampton Preservation Fund written to the “Hampton Bays Taxpayers.”
Hampton Bays happens to be the largest voting block in Southampton Town. Hampton Bays gets a $1.5 million gift for local schools. Heaney and Nuzzi are handing the gift to the Hampton Bays School.
Kabot is challenging Heaney in a Republican primary for the first time. The Primary is on September 18th and the Southampton Press headline reads: "Financial Windfall for Hampton Bays." It's like a front page ad in the Southampton Press for Heaney.
The Hampton Bays vote usually decides the election – and, in this case Heaney is betting (Preservation Fund money) YOUR MONEY, that this will swing the Primary and the General Election vote his way. Nothing like buying the vote with the New Yorker’s and homeowner’s money – especially, since he plans on screwing them again once in office for another two years, and perhaps beyond that through his clones Nuzzi and Russo. Remember, New Yorker's can't vote -- even though it's their money paying for all of this. Remember the Boston Tea Party?
It's no surprise that the other Board members knew nothing of this press conference – or that even Fred Thiele explained that this PILOT program was not yet approved (but now will be by the Town Board through the intimidation of lost votes if they don’t).
Thiele professed ignorance of this ploy, along with the news conference which conveniently left Kabot and Graboski out of the loop but found a Southampton Press reporter right down the block. How do those guys from the Southampton Press -- along with a photographer -- always know just where to be to get their scoops?
This little media stunt clearly indicates that the Southampton Press is blatantly in Heaney’s pocket – along with the other major "news source" (Suffolk Life), whose publisher's son, Dave Wilmot,Jr., happens to be Heaney’s campaign manager. Talk about an independent media in the Hamptons?
Get ready for more “soldiers” from up the island imported to continue Heaney’s reign.
Get ready for more raiding of the Preservation Fund to support political games so that your tax money keeps the Emperor, Heaney, in office.
Get ready for the renewed subordination of women until this regime of good ‘old boys running Southampton Town.
And, get ready for the rental law witch-hunts, which will trample on the Constitution and make Kristalnacht looks like mischief on Prom Night at the local high school.
All the while, the Storm Troopers will be breaking into houses, eliminating the rental property market, raising taxes and flooding the market with unaffordable housing for sale.
This is the solution to the Latinos, affordable housing, equality for women, and the control and destruction of the real estate market in the Hamptons. Elect Skip Heaney!
And they’re going to do it with your money.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Seas of Change
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
-John Kenneth Galbraith
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx
The Town of Southampton's most interesting political struggles involve a few positions that have not really been challenged for the last decade.
The Supervisor race has really been a dog and pony show since Heaney and Connuscio squared off over the cell phone tower imbroglio -- and the Feds were wiring both of them to try to get a conviction for the "sale" of influence on the Town Board. The "informer" walked on that conviction and it was back to business as usual subsequent to that -- with Hal Ross hired by the Republicans to threaten anyone who wanted to run against Heaney. No wonder Ross was one of the only "Democrats" who became a paid consultant to Heaney's Republican administration.
But this year, the last possible run for Heaney as Supervisor (unless he pulls a Chavez trick and cancels term limits), finds Linda Kabot challenging him in a primary contest. As a Town Council member, her reasons for running were publicized in the local news but the truth is probably easier to find by "throwing the cards" or consulting a ouija board while sipping Margarita's at the Driver's Seat - than by reading that Republican house organ, the Southampton Press. If you're really adventurous you could also pick up Suffolk Life which is about as newsworthy as the circulars for backyard sheds or garage extensions (its life span having more to do with Free Speech compliments of the courts than independent reporting), -- and is about as relevant to current political thought.
In addition to Kabot for Supervisor, one of the candidates for Judge in this country's busiest Justice Court is Andrea Schiavoni. She's running against Eddy Burke, one of the East End's best known jurists and Republican Party insider. He is well connected and he is, well, well connected. He's not a bad lawyer and his family moniker is about at the same par with the Gilmartins. Southampton is really a small town in that regard. People are still warned to leave town at sundown in subtle ways - it's just done differently from the days when Clint Eastwood was still making spaghetti westerns.
Eddy Burke's son is a Town Attorney in Southampton. Gilmartin was Town Attorney and Village Attorney.
If you want to get things done in this Town, or Village, you get to know who matters.
Or, you just don't get things done.
It's really not PC to be a New Yorker, a Democrat, a Jew, a Black or a Latino.
In other words, New Yorkers cannot vote for what's done with the property tax money that pays for the local government; Democrats don't inherit any political power; Jews are supposed to stick to buying vacation homes; Blacks are told to keep quiet, and, Latinos - well, they're just supposed to work hard and watch out that they don't get shot at for not speaking English. And hope that they are not going to be forced out of their homes by Steve Frano, Code Enforcement One (yes, that is his title), and his storm troopers. Especially, if Heaney decides to target the property owners or the Spanish speaking tenants - and then sics Frano on them. Targeting political rivals or vocal opponents is a favorite tactic of Heaney and his new kemosave, Chris Nuzzi, an "associate" who was imported from Crookhaven after some nasty political dirt erupted there. Both of them campaigned on the issue of creating a new rental housing law, among other tactics, to deal with politically unpopular inaction by Bush at the national level - to "solve" the illegal immigration problem. Together, they molded a proposed law that took aim at all of the "undesirables."
So, what did they do?
Heaney and Nuzzi decided to expand the presently unconstitutional "summer share house law" which was intended to do the work of code enforcement people who were too uneducated and/or incompetent to enforce the laws already on the books without violating everyone's rights (i.e., garbage, noise, parking, tenancy violations) - and so they decided to lump the Latinos into that mix - and add some REALLY good criminal sanctions.
And, to help out the economy and their buddies, they targeted homeowners and property owners who have the gall to rent to these undesirables. Why?
Because affordable housing in the Hamptons is a joke.
And, because it is easier to issue a criminal summons than it is to enforce rational, unbiased laws. If you are smart you advise people to make changes.
If you're stupid, you pull a gun on them and bully them.
That's the Town of Southampton way - under Heaney.
You can't have your hands in those property-owner tax payer's pockets if you cannot threaten them with criminal summonses. They might get pissed off at not having the ability to vote you out of office if you can't target them when they complain.
Heaney & Co. has no intention of offending local developers or their attorneys, nor does he have any intention of introducing zoning rules that will give local residents the ability to afford a house - so he and Nuzzi want the voters to be angry at the Latinos and property owners who don't fill their campaign coffers. That's the ticket: Heaney and Nuzzi. Heaney now, Nuzzi in two years. Heaney goes and Nuzzi escapes the smell from Brookhaven and takes over Southampton in two years.
According to the June article in Suffolk Life, Nuzzi is quoted as saying, there is "presumptive evidence" of illegal occupancy if the Code Enforcement people don't like what they see at someone's house. Instead of having to issue a warning, to serve a homeowner if they live out of town, we're going to allow the owner to be served by advising the Town Clerk. Gee, that's really giving someone notices of a problem.
So, in other words, folks, if we think we don't like something, we're just going to give the notice to one of our people - and, you've served. We'll mail a letter to ourselves. Isn't that neat -- and illegal -- don't you think?
How's that for legal process - or, constitutional law?
Back to Andrea Schiavoni. She is a very business-like attorney who suffers from only a few tragic flaws in Southampton: she's smart and she's experienced.
And, Burke suffers from only one major flaw. He's, well, Burke.
Aside from being part of the old boy network and needs to find a new sinecure after Pataki bit the dust, Burke and Burke and Burke are similar to Gilmartin and Gilmartin and Gilmartin.
The inbred problem seems to be good for local business but it is does not bode well for the concept of political or economic reform.
It's not always necessary for malevolent charges of unethical or immoral, or even illegal behavior - for the public to say, we need a change.
The cobwebs of connections in a small but very rich community sometimes speak for themselves.
Andrea Schiavoni is highly experienced and would augment a Justice Court bench where the level of Republican control of legal decisions is only too obvious.
Court Officers, Code Enforcement Officers, Town Police, County Police, Village Police, Town Attorneys, Village Attorneys, Assistant District Attorneys - all glare at and subtly threaten Judges to "do the right thing" in these small local Village and Town courts.
Andrea Andrea Schiavoni is no pale flower and is not someone who would easily be influenced to rule by anything but "the rule of law." She is not an insider but she is also not an outsider. She is a Sag Harbor resident and would be a real addition and instrument of change for that court.
Linda Kabot, member of the Town Council, had been an associate of "Skip" Heaney but has recently ruptured with the Republican hierarchy, as has Nancy Graboski.
Graboski, a Town Board member ruptured ties with the Republican Party over the Zizzi flap. While the Southampton Press has been careful to not step on Kabot or too heavily on Graboski, it is clear that they are siding with the Southampton Town Republican Party majority who feed them business and information. It's one reason why you will never find a key Republican in their police blotter - they would be shut out of information and advertising.
Kabot is respected by the local populace and is not sitting on a several hundred thousand dollar campaign chest as Heaney is - but is challenging Heaney nevertheless. She is also one of several candidates supported by the new reform-minded Integrity Party - whose leaders include Darren Johnson and Bob Olson.
Both Johnson and Olson are a breed of political leaders that work outside of the box; if you are a reform-minded candidate seeking to improve the political process, they want to talk to you. In the cross-endorsement era of Suffolk politics, they are more interested in improving politics than controlling political power for local voters.
In response to Kabot's declaration of independence, of course, Heaney felt it was his "obligation" to report a conflict of interest issue regarding a piece of land that relatives in Kabot's family owned - NEXT TO a parcel that was being developed. No profit or income to Kabot or her family, of course, and no benefit to them.
This is Conflict of interest?
Now, Conflict of Interest is as common a concept in the Heaney administration - or in Southampton Town politics up to this point - as are unconstitutional local laws. You know, those laws that are intended to harass people out of their homes and prevent young people from sharing a house in the summer? With a handful of code enforcement officers who like to issue "Criminal Summonses" rather than simply send warning letters to homeowners; with a set of laws that seek to criminalize homeowners for not having a house number affixed to their doors; with the "Target your enemies" attitude in the one real income producing business in the Hamptons (real estate) - you have a Town owned and operated by people who look up to Storm Troopers - and who have the same attitude as their WWII counterparts towards Blacks, Jews, Latinos and New Yorkers.
Zizzi was a builder who sat on the Zoning Appeals Committee and who voted on variance applications for people who were going to build locally. (Talk about Conflict of Interest) And, it was this odorous connection in the Town that got Graboski upset - causing the rift among the Republicans.
Masterson runs the Highway Department and gives out contracts for paving and is one of the biggest fundraisers for the Republican Party. (No conflict here)
Heaney decides which parcels are bought with Peconic Transfer Tax money, which sub Rosa repays political favors. (You see any conflict here?)
Kabot is guilty of Conflict of Interest when a relative owned property next to a parcel that received a variance?
Did Heaney see fit to report the bag of cash on the front seat of the vehicle when he and Cannuscio were sparring - or, did the Feds mention that to him first?
And, what about the campaign contributions discrepancies that has been investigated and reported in the East Hampton Star?
The Kabot flap is so weak that it only points out to all observers that Heaney has obviously been weakened. Why has he decided just now to make this an issue? She has been serving on the Town Board for how many years now?
James Henry has been the target of the Republicans as well. The most recent shot across the bow has been the Heaney "leaks" involving marital antagonism with Henry's former wife.
His bona fides are well respected and impressive. He's a graduate of Harvard and has credentials as an investigative reporter. He's even spent time in Noriega's Panama, which helped bring down the deposed dictator.
Henry is running for Supervisor against Heaney - on the Democratic line.
Rich Schaeffer, the head "cross-endorsement" Chair of the Suffolk County Democratic Party has already had his "Fireside chat" with Henry.
Apparently, the fact that Schaeffer is buddies with Fred Thiele, the Assemblyman and new Sag Harbor judge, seems to have enabled Henry get some unpleasant opinions of his candidacy.
Thiele is buddies with Heaney, Thiele is buddies with Schaeffer, and Schaeffer is not buddies with his own Democratic candidate.
What is that about? I think we can all guess. It used to be called political corruption. Now it's called cross-endorsement.
All very chummy, isn't it?
We'll keep you posted on these unfolding election year games.
-John Kenneth Galbraith
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-Groucho Marx
The Town of Southampton's most interesting political struggles involve a few positions that have not really been challenged for the last decade.
The Supervisor race has really been a dog and pony show since Heaney and Connuscio squared off over the cell phone tower imbroglio -- and the Feds were wiring both of them to try to get a conviction for the "sale" of influence on the Town Board. The "informer" walked on that conviction and it was back to business as usual subsequent to that -- with Hal Ross hired by the Republicans to threaten anyone who wanted to run against Heaney. No wonder Ross was one of the only "Democrats" who became a paid consultant to Heaney's Republican administration.
But this year, the last possible run for Heaney as Supervisor (unless he pulls a Chavez trick and cancels term limits), finds Linda Kabot challenging him in a primary contest. As a Town Council member, her reasons for running were publicized in the local news but the truth is probably easier to find by "throwing the cards" or consulting a ouija board while sipping Margarita's at the Driver's Seat - than by reading that Republican house organ, the Southampton Press. If you're really adventurous you could also pick up Suffolk Life which is about as newsworthy as the circulars for backyard sheds or garage extensions (its life span having more to do with Free Speech compliments of the courts than independent reporting), -- and is about as relevant to current political thought.
In addition to Kabot for Supervisor, one of the candidates for Judge in this country's busiest Justice Court is Andrea Schiavoni. She's running against Eddy Burke, one of the East End's best known jurists and Republican Party insider. He is well connected and he is, well, well connected. He's not a bad lawyer and his family moniker is about at the same par with the Gilmartins. Southampton is really a small town in that regard. People are still warned to leave town at sundown in subtle ways - it's just done differently from the days when Clint Eastwood was still making spaghetti westerns.
Eddy Burke's son is a Town Attorney in Southampton. Gilmartin was Town Attorney and Village Attorney.
If you want to get things done in this Town, or Village, you get to know who matters.
Or, you just don't get things done.
It's really not PC to be a New Yorker, a Democrat, a Jew, a Black or a Latino.
In other words, New Yorkers cannot vote for what's done with the property tax money that pays for the local government; Democrats don't inherit any political power; Jews are supposed to stick to buying vacation homes; Blacks are told to keep quiet, and, Latinos - well, they're just supposed to work hard and watch out that they don't get shot at for not speaking English. And hope that they are not going to be forced out of their homes by Steve Frano, Code Enforcement One (yes, that is his title), and his storm troopers. Especially, if Heaney decides to target the property owners or the Spanish speaking tenants - and then sics Frano on them. Targeting political rivals or vocal opponents is a favorite tactic of Heaney and his new kemosave, Chris Nuzzi, an "associate" who was imported from Crookhaven after some nasty political dirt erupted there. Both of them campaigned on the issue of creating a new rental housing law, among other tactics, to deal with politically unpopular inaction by Bush at the national level - to "solve" the illegal immigration problem. Together, they molded a proposed law that took aim at all of the "undesirables."
So, what did they do?
Heaney and Nuzzi decided to expand the presently unconstitutional "summer share house law" which was intended to do the work of code enforcement people who were too uneducated and/or incompetent to enforce the laws already on the books without violating everyone's rights (i.e., garbage, noise, parking, tenancy violations) - and so they decided to lump the Latinos into that mix - and add some REALLY good criminal sanctions.
And, to help out the economy and their buddies, they targeted homeowners and property owners who have the gall to rent to these undesirables. Why?
Because affordable housing in the Hamptons is a joke.
And, because it is easier to issue a criminal summons than it is to enforce rational, unbiased laws. If you are smart you advise people to make changes.
If you're stupid, you pull a gun on them and bully them.
That's the Town of Southampton way - under Heaney.
You can't have your hands in those property-owner tax payer's pockets if you cannot threaten them with criminal summonses. They might get pissed off at not having the ability to vote you out of office if you can't target them when they complain.
Heaney & Co. has no intention of offending local developers or their attorneys, nor does he have any intention of introducing zoning rules that will give local residents the ability to afford a house - so he and Nuzzi want the voters to be angry at the Latinos and property owners who don't fill their campaign coffers. That's the ticket: Heaney and Nuzzi. Heaney now, Nuzzi in two years. Heaney goes and Nuzzi escapes the smell from Brookhaven and takes over Southampton in two years.
According to the June article in Suffolk Life, Nuzzi is quoted as saying, there is "presumptive evidence" of illegal occupancy if the Code Enforcement people don't like what they see at someone's house. Instead of having to issue a warning, to serve a homeowner if they live out of town, we're going to allow the owner to be served by advising the Town Clerk. Gee, that's really giving someone notices of a problem.
So, in other words, folks, if we think we don't like something, we're just going to give the notice to one of our people - and, you've served. We'll mail a letter to ourselves. Isn't that neat -- and illegal -- don't you think?
How's that for legal process - or, constitutional law?
Back to Andrea Schiavoni. She is a very business-like attorney who suffers from only a few tragic flaws in Southampton: she's smart and she's experienced.
And, Burke suffers from only one major flaw. He's, well, Burke.
Aside from being part of the old boy network and needs to find a new sinecure after Pataki bit the dust, Burke and Burke and Burke are similar to Gilmartin and Gilmartin and Gilmartin.
The inbred problem seems to be good for local business but it is does not bode well for the concept of political or economic reform.
It's not always necessary for malevolent charges of unethical or immoral, or even illegal behavior - for the public to say, we need a change.
The cobwebs of connections in a small but very rich community sometimes speak for themselves.
Andrea Schiavoni is highly experienced and would augment a Justice Court bench where the level of Republican control of legal decisions is only too obvious.
Court Officers, Code Enforcement Officers, Town Police, County Police, Village Police, Town Attorneys, Village Attorneys, Assistant District Attorneys - all glare at and subtly threaten Judges to "do the right thing" in these small local Village and Town courts.
Andrea Andrea Schiavoni is no pale flower and is not someone who would easily be influenced to rule by anything but "the rule of law." She is not an insider but she is also not an outsider. She is a Sag Harbor resident and would be a real addition and instrument of change for that court.
Linda Kabot, member of the Town Council, had been an associate of "Skip" Heaney but has recently ruptured with the Republican hierarchy, as has Nancy Graboski.
Graboski, a Town Board member ruptured ties with the Republican Party over the Zizzi flap. While the Southampton Press has been careful to not step on Kabot or too heavily on Graboski, it is clear that they are siding with the Southampton Town Republican Party majority who feed them business and information. It's one reason why you will never find a key Republican in their police blotter - they would be shut out of information and advertising.
Kabot is respected by the local populace and is not sitting on a several hundred thousand dollar campaign chest as Heaney is - but is challenging Heaney nevertheless. She is also one of several candidates supported by the new reform-minded Integrity Party - whose leaders include Darren Johnson and Bob Olson.
Both Johnson and Olson are a breed of political leaders that work outside of the box; if you are a reform-minded candidate seeking to improve the political process, they want to talk to you. In the cross-endorsement era of Suffolk politics, they are more interested in improving politics than controlling political power for local voters.
In response to Kabot's declaration of independence, of course, Heaney felt it was his "obligation" to report a conflict of interest issue regarding a piece of land that relatives in Kabot's family owned - NEXT TO a parcel that was being developed. No profit or income to Kabot or her family, of course, and no benefit to them.
This is Conflict of interest?
Now, Conflict of Interest is as common a concept in the Heaney administration - or in Southampton Town politics up to this point - as are unconstitutional local laws. You know, those laws that are intended to harass people out of their homes and prevent young people from sharing a house in the summer? With a handful of code enforcement officers who like to issue "Criminal Summonses" rather than simply send warning letters to homeowners; with a set of laws that seek to criminalize homeowners for not having a house number affixed to their doors; with the "Target your enemies" attitude in the one real income producing business in the Hamptons (real estate) - you have a Town owned and operated by people who look up to Storm Troopers - and who have the same attitude as their WWII counterparts towards Blacks, Jews, Latinos and New Yorkers.
Zizzi was a builder who sat on the Zoning Appeals Committee and who voted on variance applications for people who were going to build locally. (Talk about Conflict of Interest) And, it was this odorous connection in the Town that got Graboski upset - causing the rift among the Republicans.
Masterson runs the Highway Department and gives out contracts for paving and is one of the biggest fundraisers for the Republican Party. (No conflict here)
Heaney decides which parcels are bought with Peconic Transfer Tax money, which sub Rosa repays political favors. (You see any conflict here?)
Kabot is guilty of Conflict of Interest when a relative owned property next to a parcel that received a variance?
Did Heaney see fit to report the bag of cash on the front seat of the vehicle when he and Cannuscio were sparring - or, did the Feds mention that to him first?
And, what about the campaign contributions discrepancies that has been investigated and reported in the East Hampton Star?
The Kabot flap is so weak that it only points out to all observers that Heaney has obviously been weakened. Why has he decided just now to make this an issue? She has been serving on the Town Board for how many years now?
James Henry has been the target of the Republicans as well. The most recent shot across the bow has been the Heaney "leaks" involving marital antagonism with Henry's former wife.
His bona fides are well respected and impressive. He's a graduate of Harvard and has credentials as an investigative reporter. He's even spent time in Noriega's Panama, which helped bring down the deposed dictator.
Henry is running for Supervisor against Heaney - on the Democratic line.
Rich Schaeffer, the head "cross-endorsement" Chair of the Suffolk County Democratic Party has already had his "Fireside chat" with Henry.
Apparently, the fact that Schaeffer is buddies with Fred Thiele, the Assemblyman and new Sag Harbor judge, seems to have enabled Henry get some unpleasant opinions of his candidacy.
Thiele is buddies with Heaney, Thiele is buddies with Schaeffer, and Schaeffer is not buddies with his own Democratic candidate.
What is that about? I think we can all guess. It used to be called political corruption. Now it's called cross-endorsement.
All very chummy, isn't it?
We'll keep you posted on these unfolding election year games.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Political Games
While the McMansion crowd spends time at the beach, the people who decide how much they will pay in property taxes are crunching numbers. The assessors are out counting bedrooms and scrutinizing apartments and houses so that the coffers continue to fill. The Hamptons Tea Party has not materialized yet because Wall Street is still climbing that Sisyphean curve; but as we all learned on Black Friday in 1987, when it comes down, it quickly makes real estate just as devalued as stock certificates – especially, when you need to get out in a hurry. It just takes a little longer for the insolvency to become obvious.
The only numbers that are still climbing are Manhattan condo prices – especially for 3 and 4 bedroom apartments.
Miami is getting killed, L.A. is suffering and the Hamptons are a well-guarded disaster. The under $500K market is alive and well, the $500-700K market is soft but exists, and everything after that up to $5 million is horrendous. Real Estate agents no longer describe driving around in new Range Rovers while making deals on their cell phones. They are more likely to be lining up a new job as a Yoga instructor in SoHo or waiting tables in Sag Harbor.
Once you get above the $5-7 mil range, there is some activity – theoretically, Wall Streeters are reportedly still looking for places to park money in case of a precipitous drop. It’s called hedging your bets, not as in Hedging your Funds.
So, what does this have to do with politics?
For one thing, the Town of Southampton has never gotten the message that there needs to be a voice in its local government for the property owners that pay incredible amounts of taxes, not to mention the funding of government salaries through taxes – with no representation. Property taxes, as well as transfer taxes support such useful political tools as the preservation fund – the Peconic Preservation Fund transfer tax. You know, the 2% tax collected at every closing that enables the Town to buy land so that it is NOT developed and maintained as open space. It’s actually a very good idea – but when was the last report issued on how YOUR MONEY has been administered for public benefit?
When was the last article circulated on the income and budget and who administers it?
Exactly.
The concept of a Hamptons Advocate was bandied about by Supervisor Heaney prior to this last election – and not one word has been heard about it since then. Would one conclude that this was merely a political ploy to mollify the vast number of New York City purchasers of real estate, or was it a joke at their expense? Do local politicians even give a damn about the meager public relations attempt to inform its wealthiest audience?
This year there are a number of cracks and leaks in the political dikes in Southampton Town. Up to this point, in appearance at least, the view has been more or less blurry but consistent. The Republican Party, under the apparent tutelage of landscaper Marcus Stinchi, Town Republican Chairman (who reportedly got the post because no one else wanted it), seems to have maintained its base – through control of “fundraising” from the usual suspects. Zizzi, a local builder who was also a member of the Planning Board, represented real estate interests and Masterson (Highway Superintendent) took care of contracts for paving – both sources assured that votes and contributions kept coming.
The “approved” list of attorneys, like the Gilmartins, handled the legal overflow, which has cost the Town a multi-million dollar tab needed to “augment” its in-house legal department. Voters don’t hear about these costs in the Southampton Press when election time rolls around.
So, Supervisor Heaney and Chairman Stinchi as you probably have read, threw Nancy Graboski, a Republican Town Board member, to the wolves because she and Dennis Suskind couldn’t take the quid pro quo games that had been suspected of Zizzi on the Planning Board. You can imagine how bad the smell must have been to have this laundry wind up in the Republican Town organ – the Southampton Press.
For years, the rumors of clients being steered to the right builder for the right fee in order to get plans and variances approved – and violations lifted by the Building Department at precisely the right moment – were pregnant, indeed.
As a result of Zizzi’s lack of support, he was dropped and the payback was Graboski having the rug pulled out from under her feet as election time rolled around.
Then we have the little public challenge involving Linda Kabot, a local politician, and Town Board member. Her family was, and is, local and some of the laundry was washed in public – but she apparently is well respected by the residents and is known as a straight shooter. She has apparently broken with Heaney and this year there will be a Primary. An unheard of event in this formerly Republican stronghold of cross-endorsements.
Ask a New Yorker who Kabot is and you get a blank stare. Ask a New York property owner who the Supervisor is and you still get a blank stare.
But, ask someone who is a resident of Hampton Bays or Southampton who Heaney and Kabot are and you get eye rolling for Heaney and nodding for Kabot, with, “she gets a lot of respect.”
Heaney’s family is from Hampton Bays but “Skip” is really from Queens. Kabot and her family have always been from Westhampton Beach where she went to High School.
And, that matters.
Whether local politicians know it, or even whether they care, the money and property interests will eventually affect local government.
And, whether New Yorkers and other out of town property owners realize it, local politics will, of necessity, become more important.
Keep your eye on Graboski and Kabot in the Primary coming up.
Both candidates have the support of the Integrity Party, the renegade political party that supports candidates for change. It supports candidates from both ends of the political spectrum with its emphasis on ethics and reform. The Integrity Party is blind to traditional political parties but eschews what has become a rampant challenge to democratic ideals – the cross-endorsement of candidates by Democrats and Republicans in Suffolk County politics.
And keep your eye on James Henry for Supervisor, as well.
The word is that he is a Democratic candidate who is already being threatened by the Heaney machine.
Rumors abound that Heaney’s reported $300,000 political war chest has already been used to dig up dirt. Unfortunately, the latest dirt has spread the word that Henry’s ex-wife has an Order of Protection out against him. In fact, it’s an old domestic ploy that is neither current nor relevant. He’s on amicable terms with his ex-wife but it shows how nervous Heaney has become.
We’ve heard that Rich Schaeffer, the County Democratic Chairman, champion of the cross-endorsement technique that has benefited Fred Thiele (R-Assembly) for years – has already “reasoned” with Henry about his run against Heaney. No doubt, this little “fireside chat” was in Henry’s best interest. It certainly was not done to help the old Democratic cross-endorsement addiction. (Schaeffer helps Thiele, who helps Heaney)
Or, was it?
In the past two elections, at least, the job (convincing the Democrat to drop out of the race) went to a Republican shill named Hal Ross (another Heaney “consultant”). Now, it seems, the Democrats are doing the work for the Republicans themselves.
Henry seems unmoved by all of this.
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.
The only numbers that are still climbing are Manhattan condo prices – especially for 3 and 4 bedroom apartments.
Miami is getting killed, L.A. is suffering and the Hamptons are a well-guarded disaster. The under $500K market is alive and well, the $500-700K market is soft but exists, and everything after that up to $5 million is horrendous. Real Estate agents no longer describe driving around in new Range Rovers while making deals on their cell phones. They are more likely to be lining up a new job as a Yoga instructor in SoHo or waiting tables in Sag Harbor.
Once you get above the $5-7 mil range, there is some activity – theoretically, Wall Streeters are reportedly still looking for places to park money in case of a precipitous drop. It’s called hedging your bets, not as in Hedging your Funds.
So, what does this have to do with politics?
For one thing, the Town of Southampton has never gotten the message that there needs to be a voice in its local government for the property owners that pay incredible amounts of taxes, not to mention the funding of government salaries through taxes – with no representation. Property taxes, as well as transfer taxes support such useful political tools as the preservation fund – the Peconic Preservation Fund transfer tax. You know, the 2% tax collected at every closing that enables the Town to buy land so that it is NOT developed and maintained as open space. It’s actually a very good idea – but when was the last report issued on how YOUR MONEY has been administered for public benefit?
When was the last article circulated on the income and budget and who administers it?
Exactly.
The concept of a Hamptons Advocate was bandied about by Supervisor Heaney prior to this last election – and not one word has been heard about it since then. Would one conclude that this was merely a political ploy to mollify the vast number of New York City purchasers of real estate, or was it a joke at their expense? Do local politicians even give a damn about the meager public relations attempt to inform its wealthiest audience?
This year there are a number of cracks and leaks in the political dikes in Southampton Town. Up to this point, in appearance at least, the view has been more or less blurry but consistent. The Republican Party, under the apparent tutelage of landscaper Marcus Stinchi, Town Republican Chairman (who reportedly got the post because no one else wanted it), seems to have maintained its base – through control of “fundraising” from the usual suspects. Zizzi, a local builder who was also a member of the Planning Board, represented real estate interests and Masterson (Highway Superintendent) took care of contracts for paving – both sources assured that votes and contributions kept coming.
The “approved” list of attorneys, like the Gilmartins, handled the legal overflow, which has cost the Town a multi-million dollar tab needed to “augment” its in-house legal department. Voters don’t hear about these costs in the Southampton Press when election time rolls around.
So, Supervisor Heaney and Chairman Stinchi as you probably have read, threw Nancy Graboski, a Republican Town Board member, to the wolves because she and Dennis Suskind couldn’t take the quid pro quo games that had been suspected of Zizzi on the Planning Board. You can imagine how bad the smell must have been to have this laundry wind up in the Republican Town organ – the Southampton Press.
For years, the rumors of clients being steered to the right builder for the right fee in order to get plans and variances approved – and violations lifted by the Building Department at precisely the right moment – were pregnant, indeed.
As a result of Zizzi’s lack of support, he was dropped and the payback was Graboski having the rug pulled out from under her feet as election time rolled around.
Then we have the little public challenge involving Linda Kabot, a local politician, and Town Board member. Her family was, and is, local and some of the laundry was washed in public – but she apparently is well respected by the residents and is known as a straight shooter. She has apparently broken with Heaney and this year there will be a Primary. An unheard of event in this formerly Republican stronghold of cross-endorsements.
Ask a New Yorker who Kabot is and you get a blank stare. Ask a New York property owner who the Supervisor is and you still get a blank stare.
But, ask someone who is a resident of Hampton Bays or Southampton who Heaney and Kabot are and you get eye rolling for Heaney and nodding for Kabot, with, “she gets a lot of respect.”
Heaney’s family is from Hampton Bays but “Skip” is really from Queens. Kabot and her family have always been from Westhampton Beach where she went to High School.
And, that matters.
Whether local politicians know it, or even whether they care, the money and property interests will eventually affect local government.
And, whether New Yorkers and other out of town property owners realize it, local politics will, of necessity, become more important.
Keep your eye on Graboski and Kabot in the Primary coming up.
Both candidates have the support of the Integrity Party, the renegade political party that supports candidates for change. It supports candidates from both ends of the political spectrum with its emphasis on ethics and reform. The Integrity Party is blind to traditional political parties but eschews what has become a rampant challenge to democratic ideals – the cross-endorsement of candidates by Democrats and Republicans in Suffolk County politics.
And keep your eye on James Henry for Supervisor, as well.
The word is that he is a Democratic candidate who is already being threatened by the Heaney machine.
Rumors abound that Heaney’s reported $300,000 political war chest has already been used to dig up dirt. Unfortunately, the latest dirt has spread the word that Henry’s ex-wife has an Order of Protection out against him. In fact, it’s an old domestic ploy that is neither current nor relevant. He’s on amicable terms with his ex-wife but it shows how nervous Heaney has become.
We’ve heard that Rich Schaeffer, the County Democratic Chairman, champion of the cross-endorsement technique that has benefited Fred Thiele (R-Assembly) for years – has already “reasoned” with Henry about his run against Heaney. No doubt, this little “fireside chat” was in Henry’s best interest. It certainly was not done to help the old Democratic cross-endorsement addiction. (Schaeffer helps Thiele, who helps Heaney)
Or, was it?
In the past two elections, at least, the job (convincing the Democrat to drop out of the race) went to a Republican shill named Hal Ross (another Heaney “consultant”). Now, it seems, the Democrats are doing the work for the Republicans themselves.
Henry seems unmoved by all of this.
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
A Matter of Expediency?
Election time is coming around for the Hampton folk.
Some elections may generate more heat than others.
"Skip" Heaney, for example, is generally expected to refill his Supervisor's seat for his last two year term in January of "08.
Although, anything can happen in this best of all possible Hamptons.
However, to give Heaney a run for his money (or Southampton Town's money) there's a newcomer on the block - James Henry - a Sag Harbor lawyer and Harvard Law graduate - who's actually savvy in politics AND has some ethics. He also recently settled a case with the Village of Southampton that permits war protestors the right to march in parades. As a resident of Sag Harbor for over a decade he displays and unusual combination of intelligence, toughness and moral responsibility.
Henry has just recently announced his candidacy and it should be interesting to see what the platforms are for both candidates. Other than an anti-Latino, "round 'em up and run 'em out of town" platform - Heaney may have to profess to stand for something if he winds up being opposed without Hal Ross around to threaten Henry if he doesn't drop out. At least that's what Heaney's "consultant" did to the last two candidates that tried to run against him.
Seems that the Justice Courts in Southampton and East Hampton have been busy. In fact, Southampton Town Justice Court is reputed to be the busiest in the country. Despite that, they cannot seem to get their act together and follow the rules of the Court system - having, for years, defied the requirement that there be at least one evening session per month. Still no word on whether this will ever happen.
Even more important for both courts is the fact that at least two of the judges in each court may have no right to be there. And, that would imply that the warrants, evictions, rulings and decisions, in strict interpretation - are of questionable validity.
Why?
Well, it seems that there is this little requirement that one must sign an oath of office within 30 days of being elected or re-elected and file it with the County Clerk, the Town Clerk and the Office of Court Administration. Neither Wilson nor Kooperstein in Southampton nor Cahill and Rana in East Hampton - and Wilson, again, in Southampton Village - have apparently followed those rules. This is not something a judge can just decide to take care of later. Once the deadline is missed, it's over. So, we have Wilson in Village of Southampton and Town of Southampton, Kooperstein in the Town of Southampton as well as Rana and Cahill in East Hampton -- perhaps needing to step down, if the rules are observed.
This little faux pas was discovered by attorney Patricia Weiss of Sag Harbor and apparently Newsday has picked up on this little tidbit and is investigating the matter.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Political gossip also has it that Eddy Burke is the likely Fourth Judge position to be filled in Town Justice Court. Burke was a Pataki choice for Court of Claims but now that Spitzer is Governor, the Fourth judge position is looking more appealing. The numbers work out better too. While Heaney was reportedly holding back on allocating that slot for a friend, previously thought to be Thiele, Burke's political dilemma and optimum retirement benefits combo (a bigger pension from two sources) has Heaney ready to act.
It's nice to have people looking out for you.
Gossip also has it that Marcus Stinchi, the Town Republican Party head, has been targeting businesses in Westhampton Beach where he has his landscaping business. If you piss him off he runs to his friends in the Town and makes life difficult. Stinchi has Houlihan, the current Westhampton Beach Building Inspector (formerly the Building Inpector of Southampton Town) who was imported to Westhampton Beach after there were so many lawsuits filed that former Mayor Bob Strebel did a favor and took him in -- as well as Bridget Napoli, the Code Enforcement officer -- to do his bidding. If Stinchi reports that he doesn't like someone, "Skip" picks up the phone and Houlihan and Napoli go to work. That's not nice. But, at least, now we all know it. It explains a lot of the apparent anti-business sentiment that the current Mayor had wrongly been accused of.
Stay Tuned.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
A New Bill of Rights?
After the recent “spontaneous” demonstrations in front of the Southampton 7-11 with no police in sight, usually comprised of a few white guys having a cigarette and a beer while carrying placards urging people to protect them from illegal workers – you would think that we had reached the limits of social consciousness. After all, demonstrations of any sort used to guarantee responses from the SWAT-team mentality in Southampton Town. A few years ago, police and reporters in full blown riot gear descended upon a group rental for violating a law to file for a rental permit. The courts routinely mail out criminal summonses for crimes as egregious as not having a street number on your house. Arrest warrants are issued for notices sent by the court and served illegally. And, the Police here are not known for their international laissez-faire views on dissent. So, the 7-11 experience, no police in sight, no demand for permits to demonstrate – is neither a secret nor is it surprising. It’s just the way things are in the Hamptons, wink-wink, nod-nod.
Well, not entirely.
It seems that the Village of Southampton, under the guiding light of Mayor Mark Epley and with the political finesse of William Frankenbach, have decided to re-write the rules for participating in the 4th of July parade in that Village. Following on the heels of a series of “dictatorial” pronouncements similar to those attempted in Sag Harbor Village, the Village of Southampton has attempted to deny the rights of certain groups wishing to participate in the parade. Specifically, any group wishing to display peace signs or make any form of “political statement” was disincluded and disinvited from marching.
How? Well first of all the rules for participating were changed by Mr. Frankenbach and a convenient little committee appointed by the Village and the Mayor called the Commission on Veteran Patriotic Events. The Mayor is a member; it’s paid for by the Village and clearly one of the reasons for its existence is to have the taxpayers pay for the parade – which was formerly paid for by the Combined Veterans of Foreign Wars, Frankenbach’s group.
The second reason for the existence of the CVPE is unattractive. And, its modus operandi is even less attractive.
The CVPE changed the rules for any groups wishing to obtain permits to march, left little time for certain groups to apply, and then denied permits to those they deigned undesirable—clearly for political reasons. All this, while they claimed to be trying to keeping political statements out of the parade. In the past, the parade restrictions were limited to keeping commercial messages out of the parade and preventing any disruptive behavior.
What is at stake here is the “Right of Free Assembly” and the “Right of Free Speech.” At least, that is how it is viewed in most other American towns, cities and villages. It was, as we understand it, the rights that soldiers went to war to protect.
However, Chairman Frankenbach of the CVPE, sent out a letter to those who had marched in previous years advising them that the rules for being granted a permit to march in the July Parade had been changed to eliminate “political propaganda” or “political protests. “ According to Frankenbach’s discussion with several plaintiffs, this prevented the carrying of a UN flag, as well as any anti-war emblems or placards. Anyone appearing with “political” material, no matter what their behavior was, would be subject to forcible eviction from the Parade, and possible arrest.
Now, let’s get this straight. Veterans and others want to march to express, among other things, the fact that soldiers have died for our right to speak our minds – to fight and die for the right that we all wish to keep – for free speech, to demonstrate without reprisal, to write about how we feel about our government without fear of being silenced – and Frankenbach and Epley want to take that away from us on the FOURTH OF JULY!
Fortunately, Federal Judge Seybert agrees with the plaintiffs who took them to court --
THE REV. ALISON CORNISH, the BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE, WILLIAM R. DALSIMER, JAMES S. HENRY, JOSEPH GIANNINI, MICHAEL O’NEILL, MYRNA TRUITT, the REVEREND GEORGE A. WILSON, the EAST END VETERANS, and the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF THE SOUTH FORK – are all plaintiffs in a case brought against Mayor Epley, Frankenbach and the members of the Commission on Veteran Patriotic Events.
According to the complaint filed:
Quote -- The real reason for the CVPE’s new “exclusionary rule” for objectionable
“political propaganda” that it finds objectionable appears, upon information and belief,
to be quite simple: the last year’s growing opposition to the Iraq War, compared with the
political views of Frankenbach, in particular, as well as several politically-influential,
Conservative veterans groups. This has produced a blatant attempt on the part of these
factions to curtail dissent and discriminate against anti-war veterans groups like EVE -- unquote.
Seybert heard arguments this past Friday and opened the court today in order to hear further arguments in the matter when Mayor Epley called and advised the plaintiffs that they could march. Of course, Mayor Epley theoretically doesn’t have the power to offer that since it’s not his committee (or is it?).
It should also be interesting to see how the local media reports this since both the Southampton Press and Suffolk Life are basically owned or operated by Republican, conservative, right wing politicians. There is no center or left of center press in the Hamptons. They would never survive the advertising blackout.
Curious, isn’t it, how ephemeral the Bill of Rights is in the Hamptons?
The First and Fourteenth Amendments are endangered species in this here part of the woods.
Stay tuned.
Well, not entirely.
It seems that the Village of Southampton, under the guiding light of Mayor Mark Epley and with the political finesse of William Frankenbach, have decided to re-write the rules for participating in the 4th of July parade in that Village. Following on the heels of a series of “dictatorial” pronouncements similar to those attempted in Sag Harbor Village, the Village of Southampton has attempted to deny the rights of certain groups wishing to participate in the parade. Specifically, any group wishing to display peace signs or make any form of “political statement” was disincluded and disinvited from marching.
How? Well first of all the rules for participating were changed by Mr. Frankenbach and a convenient little committee appointed by the Village and the Mayor called the Commission on Veteran Patriotic Events. The Mayor is a member; it’s paid for by the Village and clearly one of the reasons for its existence is to have the taxpayers pay for the parade – which was formerly paid for by the Combined Veterans of Foreign Wars, Frankenbach’s group.
The second reason for the existence of the CVPE is unattractive. And, its modus operandi is even less attractive.
The CVPE changed the rules for any groups wishing to obtain permits to march, left little time for certain groups to apply, and then denied permits to those they deigned undesirable—clearly for political reasons. All this, while they claimed to be trying to keeping political statements out of the parade. In the past, the parade restrictions were limited to keeping commercial messages out of the parade and preventing any disruptive behavior.
What is at stake here is the “Right of Free Assembly” and the “Right of Free Speech.” At least, that is how it is viewed in most other American towns, cities and villages. It was, as we understand it, the rights that soldiers went to war to protect.
However, Chairman Frankenbach of the CVPE, sent out a letter to those who had marched in previous years advising them that the rules for being granted a permit to march in the July Parade had been changed to eliminate “political propaganda” or “political protests. “ According to Frankenbach’s discussion with several plaintiffs, this prevented the carrying of a UN flag, as well as any anti-war emblems or placards. Anyone appearing with “political” material, no matter what their behavior was, would be subject to forcible eviction from the Parade, and possible arrest.
Now, let’s get this straight. Veterans and others want to march to express, among other things, the fact that soldiers have died for our right to speak our minds – to fight and die for the right that we all wish to keep – for free speech, to demonstrate without reprisal, to write about how we feel about our government without fear of being silenced – and Frankenbach and Epley want to take that away from us on the FOURTH OF JULY!
Fortunately, Federal Judge Seybert agrees with the plaintiffs who took them to court --
THE REV. ALISON CORNISH, the BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE, WILLIAM R. DALSIMER, JAMES S. HENRY, JOSEPH GIANNINI, MICHAEL O’NEILL, MYRNA TRUITT, the REVEREND GEORGE A. WILSON, the EAST END VETERANS, and the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF THE SOUTH FORK – are all plaintiffs in a case brought against Mayor Epley, Frankenbach and the members of the Commission on Veteran Patriotic Events.
According to the complaint filed:
Quote -- The real reason for the CVPE’s new “exclusionary rule” for objectionable
“political propaganda” that it finds objectionable appears, upon information and belief,
to be quite simple: the last year’s growing opposition to the Iraq War, compared with the
political views of Frankenbach, in particular, as well as several politically-influential,
Conservative veterans groups. This has produced a blatant attempt on the part of these
factions to curtail dissent and discriminate against anti-war veterans groups like EVE -- unquote.
Seybert heard arguments this past Friday and opened the court today in order to hear further arguments in the matter when Mayor Epley called and advised the plaintiffs that they could march. Of course, Mayor Epley theoretically doesn’t have the power to offer that since it’s not his committee (or is it?).
It should also be interesting to see how the local media reports this since both the Southampton Press and Suffolk Life are basically owned or operated by Republican, conservative, right wing politicians. There is no center or left of center press in the Hamptons. They would never survive the advertising blackout.
Curious, isn’t it, how ephemeral the Bill of Rights is in the Hamptons?
The First and Fourteenth Amendments are endangered species in this here part of the woods.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Monkey Business
The Villages and Towns in the Hamptons have been up to some interesting tricks. The Town of Southampton, in its inimitable style has begun permitting demonstrations. Of course, they are not the kind of demonstrations many of us may remember (or have read about) from the 1960"s. In those days, the issues were the rights of minorities, mostly black, in a society, mostly white, that prevented upward mobility and equality. If a black man had gotten together with a few friends in Hampton Bays and began waving signs seeking equal rights in the sixties, or for that matter, any time up to last year, he would have risked a beating. In the sixties, he might easily have been killed.
A black family wanting to live in "Skip" Heaney's (Republican Southampton Town Supervisor) Hampton Bays home turf was burned out in those days. Those were the days when an acre of land would cost you $20,000.
Which brings us to the recent immigration "reform" issue. Like several other Long Island towns and villages that are concerned about the civil rights (or lack thereof) of illegal immigrants who do the dirty work in the Hamptons - the Supervisor of Southampton made an election campaign promise with running Chris Nuzzi and Linda Kabot - to treat fire with fire. Instead of simply allowing these ogres to camp in the woods after bicycling to and from work every day, the campaign plank made it known that this should become a search and destroy mission. Search the schools for children who should not be there, harass landlords who provide housing for them, persecute employers who pay them anything for the privilege of cleaning toilets and planting shrubs all day long, and destroy lives of poor immigrants. After all, this is America. We let them in; now that it's inconvenient for some and a good political game for others, let's throw out 11 million people.
It should also not be lost on any of us that 90 percent of the costs are also picked up by those pesky non-resident tax-paying homeowners who do not have the privilege of voting in the Hamptons.
So, now, who are these people that have been bucking the trends (and flaunting their beer bellies) and demonstrating out in the open in front of the local police as well as citizen onlookers?
Have these illegals workers been outspoken people, standing up for their rights in America - the land of the free - using Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech?
Well, not exactly.
It's usually three or four local "boys," standing in front of the Southampton 7-11 with placards. They're overweight, sometimes drinking, smoking and partying - to "protest" the effect that the illegal immigrants have had on their downtrodden lives. Apparently, their rights have been trampled and they are there to raise everyone's consciousness about how they are suffering. Unfortunately, it looks more like William Masterson (who hands out the Asphalt contracts for the Town) was instructed by a still Republican-controlled government, to get out the contractors for a political agenda statement. Deprivation was neither obvious nor believable in these "demonstrators."
Somehow, neither the politicians nor the local police seem to find this offensive. Isn't that surprising?
Neither the Shinnecock Indians, Black activists, Latino housing supporters nor any other minority group has ever successfully been able to launch effective demonstrations in the Hamptons. Why? Because it wasn't permitted. The Town, the Police, or the venerable Southampton Press would make it a non-event. Either it could not happen, or if it did happen, it wasn't reported.
But, get a few contractors together, beer bellies intact and carrying placards in front of 7-11 where the "illegals" stand around looking for work. And, voila, you've got Town approval, no Police presence, and front-page photographs in the Southampton Press.
Now, that's what we call Democracy?
This is the follow-up to the combined State and local Swat teams that recently "raided" the housing in which these poor illegal immigrants live. Perhaps they were singing God Save America when they were rousting the lairs of these criminals.
Speaking of which, the Village of Sag Harbor is busy cooking up some new laws. Now the Village is looking to require permits for publications. Under the guise of protecting its citizens from those nasty free periodicals, a new ordinance is being touted as the smartest thing since dental floss. Any distributor who fails to submit the name, address and license plate number of the person or persons handing out publications - and submits a copy of the publication to the Village for a review of its appropriateness for approval, is subject to a CONTINUOUS $250 per day fine and a misdemeanor 30 day jail term for failure to cooperate.
Don't you wonder if the Village ever heard of the 1st amendment to the Constitution - or, if that doesn't matter - how about the role the pamphleteers played in Revolutionary France just before Louis XV1 got his sore throat?
We've heard that this is a bad move, a bad solution to a fictitious problem, and will have a bad outcome. Makes you wonder if all the political campaign literature fall under the same category.
Stay tuned on this one.
And, just when you thought we were finished with Sag Harbor, there comes this other issue.
For those of you who are in the dark about these matters, the Village of Sag Harbor is located partly within the Town of East Hampton and partly within the Town of East Hampton -- and it plans to start its own Justice Court this summer. Late last December, the Village entered into a $50,000 contract with Fundamental Business Services to provide "services and products" for the Justice Court. The Village has paid FBS $25,000 so far this year, and it plans to pay the balance sometime this July, when the Justice Court is expected to officially begin. Although the Village never actually passed a resolution or a local law which created the Justice Court, the Village Mayor and Board of Trustees say that they are confident about a "resolution, subject to permissive referendum" to create the office of elected Village Justice which also creates the Justice Court once the Village Justice is elected in the June 20th election and then sworn in.
Sometime after the position of elected Village Justice was created on December 15, 2005, however, the Village Mayor and some members of the Board of Trustees began to have second thoughts about the qualifications for that elected position. Under the State's Public Officers Law and the State's Village Law, one of those qualifications is that the elected Village Justice must be a resident of the Village in which he or she adjudicates. However, there is a special provision in the State's "Village Law" that says that if any village has less than 3000 residents, that village "may provide" that the qualification of village residency can be abolished and replaced by a qualification of county residency. Apparently, that is what the Village government decided to "provide" at the February 2006 monthly meeting when it voted on a resolution that said that the elected justice must reside in "Suffolk County."
However, one of the village residents has objected to that streamlined manner of abolishing a village residency requirement by expanding the pool of lawyers --- and non-lawyers --- who may serve as the elected Village Justice of Sag Harbor. Local attorney Patricia Weiss, who lives, works and votes in Sag Harbor, has filed an Article 78 proceeding that is now pending before Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley, Jr. Ms. Weiss is saying that the Village ought to have held a public hearing, with advance notice to the public and to her, as part of the procedure for any amendment of the local law which established the office of elected Village Justice last December. Weiss's position is that there are many reasons why the village residency requirement should not have been abolished without such a public hearing for an amendment of a local law first being held. Ms. Weiss says that the Village government was required, under both a 1979 Attorney General Informal Opinion and the "legislative equivalency doctrine", to afford her a public forum in which to express those reasons before the Mayor and Board of Trustees hastily moved by a mere "resolution" to abolish the qualification of local residency for the elected Village Justice. Ms. Weiss has requested that the names of all persons who live outside the village be removed from the June 20th ballot for elected Village Justice.
One concern expressed by Ms. Weiss is that even if a village resident who is an attorney is elected to the four year term, that justice could later move to the far western part of Suffolk County and designate the Village Board's appointed (back-up) justice (perhaps even a non-lawyer) to handle practically all of the Justice Court's caseload, while still receiving the same monthly paycheck. Because local justice courts are required under the Uniform Justice Court Act to hold Small Claims Court once a month in the evening and because arraignments must be held within 24 hours of an arrest, Ms. Weiss believes that proximity to the Village is a serious consideration, given the fact that the morning traffic congestion over the Shinnecock Canal was one of the factors that the Village took into consideration in deciding to establish the Justice Court in the first place.
Ms. Weiss' concern is that the hand-picked "appointed" justice would then be hearing virtually all of the cases involving parking tickets, speeding tickets, and alleged violations of village ordinances which the Village government has passed, some of which provide for penalties and fines up to $1000 per day.
There are three candidates in the running, who are awaiting the decision by Justice Baisley along with Ms. Weiss. One non-lawyer candidate who lives outside the Village has been quoted in the local newspaper as saying that the Mayor personally contacted him and asked him to run for the office. That candidate is running on the party line of the two trustees who are seeking reelection and are unopposed. A second candidate lives outside the village limits and is an attorney with a private practice as a mediator of civil disputes. The third candidate is a local resident who is also an attorney with extensive experience in the areas of both criminal and civil law.
Finally, the Marty Tankleff saga continues - the story of what many claim is the false confession at the hands of the notorious Suffolk County Police Department and subsequent railroading and imprisonment of an innocent man - is coming to New York City. The Puffin Foundation, a non-profit SoHo gallery, is holding a fundraiser and meeting on June 21st where many of the notables involved in the movement to free Marty Tankleff will appear to speak. For further information log on to www.martytankleff.org. Many consider this travesty of justice to be one of the worst scandals in Suffolk County politics - and one which is about to erupt.
Be sure to keep informed by frequently checking the SoHo Journal blog.
Breaking News:
SUFFOLK SUPREME COURT HALTS SAG HARBOR JUSTICE COURT FOR NOW
June 8th, Riverhead, Exclusive to the Sohojournal
Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley, Jr. determined on Thursday that Sag Harbor Village did not follow the State's Village Law when it took steps last December 2005 to create a Village Justice Court and make plans for an election of a Village Justice on June 20th. Justice Baisley found that the Village's February 2006 resolution to abolish the local residency requirement is a "nullity" because it sought to change the qualifications for an elected position that had never been properly established in accordance with the State's Village Law in the first place. With the decision coming so close to election day, June 20th, there is an insufficient amount of time for a "do over" before the annual Village 2006 election.
A black family wanting to live in "Skip" Heaney's (Republican Southampton Town Supervisor) Hampton Bays home turf was burned out in those days. Those were the days when an acre of land would cost you $20,000.
Which brings us to the recent immigration "reform" issue. Like several other Long Island towns and villages that are concerned about the civil rights (or lack thereof) of illegal immigrants who do the dirty work in the Hamptons - the Supervisor of Southampton made an election campaign promise with running Chris Nuzzi and Linda Kabot - to treat fire with fire. Instead of simply allowing these ogres to camp in the woods after bicycling to and from work every day, the campaign plank made it known that this should become a search and destroy mission. Search the schools for children who should not be there, harass landlords who provide housing for them, persecute employers who pay them anything for the privilege of cleaning toilets and planting shrubs all day long, and destroy lives of poor immigrants. After all, this is America. We let them in; now that it's inconvenient for some and a good political game for others, let's throw out 11 million people.
It should also not be lost on any of us that 90 percent of the costs are also picked up by those pesky non-resident tax-paying homeowners who do not have the privilege of voting in the Hamptons.
So, now, who are these people that have been bucking the trends (and flaunting their beer bellies) and demonstrating out in the open in front of the local police as well as citizen onlookers?
Have these illegals workers been outspoken people, standing up for their rights in America - the land of the free - using Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech?
Well, not exactly.
It's usually three or four local "boys," standing in front of the Southampton 7-11 with placards. They're overweight, sometimes drinking, smoking and partying - to "protest" the effect that the illegal immigrants have had on their downtrodden lives. Apparently, their rights have been trampled and they are there to raise everyone's consciousness about how they are suffering. Unfortunately, it looks more like William Masterson (who hands out the Asphalt contracts for the Town) was instructed by a still Republican-controlled government, to get out the contractors for a political agenda statement. Deprivation was neither obvious nor believable in these "demonstrators."
Somehow, neither the politicians nor the local police seem to find this offensive. Isn't that surprising?
Neither the Shinnecock Indians, Black activists, Latino housing supporters nor any other minority group has ever successfully been able to launch effective demonstrations in the Hamptons. Why? Because it wasn't permitted. The Town, the Police, or the venerable Southampton Press would make it a non-event. Either it could not happen, or if it did happen, it wasn't reported.
But, get a few contractors together, beer bellies intact and carrying placards in front of 7-11 where the "illegals" stand around looking for work. And, voila, you've got Town approval, no Police presence, and front-page photographs in the Southampton Press.
Now, that's what we call Democracy?
This is the follow-up to the combined State and local Swat teams that recently "raided" the housing in which these poor illegal immigrants live. Perhaps they were singing God Save America when they were rousting the lairs of these criminals.
Speaking of which, the Village of Sag Harbor is busy cooking up some new laws. Now the Village is looking to require permits for publications. Under the guise of protecting its citizens from those nasty free periodicals, a new ordinance is being touted as the smartest thing since dental floss. Any distributor who fails to submit the name, address and license plate number of the person or persons handing out publications - and submits a copy of the publication to the Village for a review of its appropriateness for approval, is subject to a CONTINUOUS $250 per day fine and a misdemeanor 30 day jail term for failure to cooperate.
Don't you wonder if the Village ever heard of the 1st amendment to the Constitution - or, if that doesn't matter - how about the role the pamphleteers played in Revolutionary France just before Louis XV1 got his sore throat?
We've heard that this is a bad move, a bad solution to a fictitious problem, and will have a bad outcome. Makes you wonder if all the political campaign literature fall under the same category.
Stay tuned on this one.
And, just when you thought we were finished with Sag Harbor, there comes this other issue.
For those of you who are in the dark about these matters, the Village of Sag Harbor is located partly within the Town of East Hampton and partly within the Town of East Hampton -- and it plans to start its own Justice Court this summer. Late last December, the Village entered into a $50,000 contract with Fundamental Business Services to provide "services and products" for the Justice Court. The Village has paid FBS $25,000 so far this year, and it plans to pay the balance sometime this July, when the Justice Court is expected to officially begin. Although the Village never actually passed a resolution or a local law which created the Justice Court, the Village Mayor and Board of Trustees say that they are confident about a "resolution, subject to permissive referendum" to create the office of elected Village Justice which also creates the Justice Court once the Village Justice is elected in the June 20th election and then sworn in.
Sometime after the position of elected Village Justice was created on December 15, 2005, however, the Village Mayor and some members of the Board of Trustees began to have second thoughts about the qualifications for that elected position. Under the State's Public Officers Law and the State's Village Law, one of those qualifications is that the elected Village Justice must be a resident of the Village in which he or she adjudicates. However, there is a special provision in the State's "Village Law" that says that if any village has less than 3000 residents, that village "may provide" that the qualification of village residency can be abolished and replaced by a qualification of county residency. Apparently, that is what the Village government decided to "provide" at the February 2006 monthly meeting when it voted on a resolution that said that the elected justice must reside in "Suffolk County."
However, one of the village residents has objected to that streamlined manner of abolishing a village residency requirement by expanding the pool of lawyers --- and non-lawyers --- who may serve as the elected Village Justice of Sag Harbor. Local attorney Patricia Weiss, who lives, works and votes in Sag Harbor, has filed an Article 78 proceeding that is now pending before Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley, Jr. Ms. Weiss is saying that the Village ought to have held a public hearing, with advance notice to the public and to her, as part of the procedure for any amendment of the local law which established the office of elected Village Justice last December. Weiss's position is that there are many reasons why the village residency requirement should not have been abolished without such a public hearing for an amendment of a local law first being held. Ms. Weiss says that the Village government was required, under both a 1979 Attorney General Informal Opinion and the "legislative equivalency doctrine", to afford her a public forum in which to express those reasons before the Mayor and Board of Trustees hastily moved by a mere "resolution" to abolish the qualification of local residency for the elected Village Justice. Ms. Weiss has requested that the names of all persons who live outside the village be removed from the June 20th ballot for elected Village Justice.
One concern expressed by Ms. Weiss is that even if a village resident who is an attorney is elected to the four year term, that justice could later move to the far western part of Suffolk County and designate the Village Board's appointed (back-up) justice (perhaps even a non-lawyer) to handle practically all of the Justice Court's caseload, while still receiving the same monthly paycheck. Because local justice courts are required under the Uniform Justice Court Act to hold Small Claims Court once a month in the evening and because arraignments must be held within 24 hours of an arrest, Ms. Weiss believes that proximity to the Village is a serious consideration, given the fact that the morning traffic congestion over the Shinnecock Canal was one of the factors that the Village took into consideration in deciding to establish the Justice Court in the first place.
Ms. Weiss' concern is that the hand-picked "appointed" justice would then be hearing virtually all of the cases involving parking tickets, speeding tickets, and alleged violations of village ordinances which the Village government has passed, some of which provide for penalties and fines up to $1000 per day.
There are three candidates in the running, who are awaiting the decision by Justice Baisley along with Ms. Weiss. One non-lawyer candidate who lives outside the Village has been quoted in the local newspaper as saying that the Mayor personally contacted him and asked him to run for the office. That candidate is running on the party line of the two trustees who are seeking reelection and are unopposed. A second candidate lives outside the village limits and is an attorney with a private practice as a mediator of civil disputes. The third candidate is a local resident who is also an attorney with extensive experience in the areas of both criminal and civil law.
Finally, the Marty Tankleff saga continues - the story of what many claim is the false confession at the hands of the notorious Suffolk County Police Department and subsequent railroading and imprisonment of an innocent man - is coming to New York City. The Puffin Foundation, a non-profit SoHo gallery, is holding a fundraiser and meeting on June 21st where many of the notables involved in the movement to free Marty Tankleff will appear to speak. For further information log on to www.martytankleff.org. Many consider this travesty of justice to be one of the worst scandals in Suffolk County politics - and one which is about to erupt.
Be sure to keep informed by frequently checking the SoHo Journal blog.
Breaking News:
SUFFOLK SUPREME COURT HALTS SAG HARBOR JUSTICE COURT FOR NOW
June 8th, Riverhead, Exclusive to the Sohojournal
Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Paul J. Baisley, Jr. determined on Thursday that Sag Harbor Village did not follow the State's Village Law when it took steps last December 2005 to create a Village Justice Court and make plans for an election of a Village Justice on June 20th. Justice Baisley found that the Village's February 2006 resolution to abolish the local residency requirement is a "nullity" because it sought to change the qualifications for an elected position that had never been properly established in accordance with the State's Village Law in the first place. With the decision coming so close to election day, June 20th, there is an insufficient amount of time for a "do over" before the annual Village 2006 election.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Reinventing the Democrats
Some candidates are more clearly Democratic than others.
We had the pleasure of meeting Treewolf West recently and what was most impressive about him was his commitment to reform. He is expected to shortly announce his candidacy for State Assembly for a run against incumbent Fred Thiele in the 2nd A.D. this Fall. There is no question that this will be a tough uphill battle for West because of the support that Thiele enjoys not only from Republicans, but from the entrenched Democrats who have the bad habit of cross-endorsing candidates.
Rich Schaeffer, the County Democratic Chairman who wants to be State Chairman is not only related to Thiele (he is godfather to one of Thiele's children), but has led Democrats down the garden path of cross-endorsement several times in the past. While this may have been a survival tactic in a completely Republican past environment, few seats now seem out of reach for Democrats. Both Nassau and Suffolk have Democratic County Executives, the Sheriff is a Democrat and arguably so is the District Attorney. West is a bona fide Democratic candidate who will also be running with the support of the newly-formed Integrity Party and this presents a problem. Does Thiele (a Republican) again receive a cross-endorsement with Democratic support when a credible young activist politician (who garnered 37% of the vote in the last election) is running against him? Or, does Schaeffer do the right thing for the party and start supporting Democratic candidates and stop the bullshit? While many rank and file members have already made that decision, the vote is still out.
Realizing that the winds of change are starting to gather some force, the Democratic Party in Southampton is erupting. And, over the same issue. There has not been a credible candidate to move the Republicans out of the Supervisor's office for almost 10 years. The Republicans have had a free ride and have had no serious opposition for the last 3 or 4 elections. Now, there is the possibility that this could change. The hornets nest is the Southampton Town Democratic Party -- a fairly dysfunctional organization for nearly a decade.
Interestingly, Fred Thiele has had a lot to do with this Party problem -- directly and indirectly through his ties with Heaney & Company. As the expert in cross-endorsement tactics Thiele managed to convince the Democratic Party to endorse him not once but twice -- first as Southampton Town Supervisor, then again as State Assemblyman. The ploy, which worked well, was that he would return as a Democrat once he was elected as a Republican through the miracle of cross-endorsement. Of course, he never changed parties once he won. And, Democratic party regulars have been grousing about the betrayal for years -- and yet, here they are still talking him up and preparing to support him (or avoiding the real Democratic candidate). Same thing. Masochism runs deep in Southampton Democratic tradition. Or, is it just business?
So, between Schaeffer's (and Democratic Party) cross-endorsement support of Thiele for Assembly and his history of welching on promises -- what will the new Democratic Party do?
Well, that depends upon who takes control of the Party. The activists support George Guldi, the former County Legislator. The Friends of Thiele contingent support Mike Anthony. Tim Bishop, Steve Kenny, Dennis Suskind and Tim Motz are perceived to be too close to Thiele, emanating from an era during which no Democrat felt sure of even winning the post of Dog-catcher. Bishop, in particular, has been seen to be best buddies with Thiele and is perceived by activists to have turned his back on them once he achieved his Congressional seat. And, the "close to Thiele" group, reminds too many voters and party activists who want a real reform movement, of those days of betrayal -- which occurred twice before at the hands of Thiele and anyone surrounding him. Once the Republicans are voted out of office, the rank and file want Democrats, not reconstituted or reinvented Republicans in Bush's or Thiele's clothing.
The fact that the Southampton Press is all gushy (February 9th issue) over Mike Anthony, and barely mentions Guldi's candidacy, is telling and should worry any Democrat. The Press has been the Republican House Organ for decades. Its publication will cling to the Heaney crowd, hoping within 2 years to be the Kabot crowd, as long as possible. And, as it did with DiPirro, it will try to slowly pull the rug out from underneath any Democrat in power.
We'll keep you posted on where this goes, and why.
We had the pleasure of meeting Treewolf West recently and what was most impressive about him was his commitment to reform. He is expected to shortly announce his candidacy for State Assembly for a run against incumbent Fred Thiele in the 2nd A.D. this Fall. There is no question that this will be a tough uphill battle for West because of the support that Thiele enjoys not only from Republicans, but from the entrenched Democrats who have the bad habit of cross-endorsing candidates.
Rich Schaeffer, the County Democratic Chairman who wants to be State Chairman is not only related to Thiele (he is godfather to one of Thiele's children), but has led Democrats down the garden path of cross-endorsement several times in the past. While this may have been a survival tactic in a completely Republican past environment, few seats now seem out of reach for Democrats. Both Nassau and Suffolk have Democratic County Executives, the Sheriff is a Democrat and arguably so is the District Attorney. West is a bona fide Democratic candidate who will also be running with the support of the newly-formed Integrity Party and this presents a problem. Does Thiele (a Republican) again receive a cross-endorsement with Democratic support when a credible young activist politician (who garnered 37% of the vote in the last election) is running against him? Or, does Schaeffer do the right thing for the party and start supporting Democratic candidates and stop the bullshit? While many rank and file members have already made that decision, the vote is still out.
Realizing that the winds of change are starting to gather some force, the Democratic Party in Southampton is erupting. And, over the same issue. There has not been a credible candidate to move the Republicans out of the Supervisor's office for almost 10 years. The Republicans have had a free ride and have had no serious opposition for the last 3 or 4 elections. Now, there is the possibility that this could change. The hornets nest is the Southampton Town Democratic Party -- a fairly dysfunctional organization for nearly a decade.
Interestingly, Fred Thiele has had a lot to do with this Party problem -- directly and indirectly through his ties with Heaney & Company. As the expert in cross-endorsement tactics Thiele managed to convince the Democratic Party to endorse him not once but twice -- first as Southampton Town Supervisor, then again as State Assemblyman. The ploy, which worked well, was that he would return as a Democrat once he was elected as a Republican through the miracle of cross-endorsement. Of course, he never changed parties once he won. And, Democratic party regulars have been grousing about the betrayal for years -- and yet, here they are still talking him up and preparing to support him (or avoiding the real Democratic candidate). Same thing. Masochism runs deep in Southampton Democratic tradition. Or, is it just business?
So, between Schaeffer's (and Democratic Party) cross-endorsement support of Thiele for Assembly and his history of welching on promises -- what will the new Democratic Party do?
Well, that depends upon who takes control of the Party. The activists support George Guldi, the former County Legislator. The Friends of Thiele contingent support Mike Anthony. Tim Bishop, Steve Kenny, Dennis Suskind and Tim Motz are perceived to be too close to Thiele, emanating from an era during which no Democrat felt sure of even winning the post of Dog-catcher. Bishop, in particular, has been seen to be best buddies with Thiele and is perceived by activists to have turned his back on them once he achieved his Congressional seat. And, the "close to Thiele" group, reminds too many voters and party activists who want a real reform movement, of those days of betrayal -- which occurred twice before at the hands of Thiele and anyone surrounding him. Once the Republicans are voted out of office, the rank and file want Democrats, not reconstituted or reinvented Republicans in Bush's or Thiele's clothing.
The fact that the Southampton Press is all gushy (February 9th issue) over Mike Anthony, and barely mentions Guldi's candidacy, is telling and should worry any Democrat. The Press has been the Republican House Organ for decades. Its publication will cling to the Heaney crowd, hoping within 2 years to be the Kabot crowd, as long as possible. And, as it did with DiPirro, it will try to slowly pull the rug out from underneath any Democrat in power.
We'll keep you posted on where this goes, and why.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Hamptons Resurgence
We have learned that Treewolf West has decided to run for Fred Thiele's seat with support from the Integrity Party.
Thiele is the New York State Assembly incumbent and has been criticized by mainstream Democrats as well as independents for exhibiting the kind of public pronouncements that have earned him the moniker "Flip-flop Fred."
Among the criticisms of Thiele have been his exaggeration of the efforts he made at saving the 106th Air Rescue Group stationed at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, when party regulars credit Hank Beck for the hard work in getting that accomplished.
Of more concern to many is Thiele's apparent leanings in favor of the Death Penalty, which has become a newly divisive issue in Suffolk politics -- especially, in light of the number of mistakes uncovered by the Innocence Project. The Progressive wind blowing through Long Island is another reason for concern over this issue. The Marty Tankleff case supporters point out that there would be no issue at all to debate had there been a Death Penalty option available to the judge when this case was originally decided (by former Sheriff Tisch). The Braslow decision is still keeping political observers and the media on the edge of their seats. Contrary to the wish of many, this controversy and potential corruption case will only blow up if Tankleff is denied a new trial for the murder of his parents 17 years ago.
For some, Thiele's claim to have fostered numerous bills in the Assembly, seem to be followed up with -- well, nothing. While much legislation has been proposed, few of these initiatives have resulted in passage -- as compared to the lip-service it has afforded him.
There is the distinct sense that Fred Thiele has produced more smoke and mirrors than substance -- unless you call trying to kill the Shinnecocks right to self-determination, substance.
Treewolf is a union guy who is working the grass roots and is another of the local, honest, hard working New Politicians -- who is progressive and honest. Thiele has consistently opposed worker-friendly legislation. We have no comment on the honest and progressive part. He appears to be the worst combination of Hamptons elitist, who, along with the characters running Town Hall in Southampton, care absolutely nothing for the non-resident tax-paying property owners. While they plan to demand the right to vote in local elections, New Yorkers cannot even get a voice in local government. Many times we have stated that there needs to be a Hamptons Advocate appointment at Town Hall -- not some local Heaney favorite who knows nothing of our concerns.
We hope to catch up with Treewolf and give you more information on his campaign. As with other successful candidates, like Sheriff Vince DeMarco, the Integrity Party is less about politics than it is about rooting out corruption and taking a stand on issues.
Tim Laube, the Deputy Mayor of the Village of Westhampton Beach, is weighing his options carefully. Although he has been mulling over whether to run for Mayor (since Strebel is retiring due to his wife's illness), he has had to reconsider his choices since having been appointed as Clerk of the Legislature. It's been almost 30 years since the Democrats have gained control of this body and he has an exciting opportunity. It's quite a choice to have to make, but one which we hope he will soon decide to make -- to do both jobs. He promises that he will be making his decision in the next couple of weeks.
While we are on the subject, however, one of Laube's pet projects is to get sewers installed in the Village. Right now, behind many of the establishments along Main Street, including restaurants, the waste has to be pumped out on a regular basis to avoid dumping directly into the waters adjacent to the Village. When serious storms hit, the overflow and seepage is not a pretty picture -- one which could prove to be quite a Health crisis. Many stores are not legally operating but the Village has no choice but to look the other way for the sake of the local economy.
Thiele is the New York State Assembly incumbent and has been criticized by mainstream Democrats as well as independents for exhibiting the kind of public pronouncements that have earned him the moniker "Flip-flop Fred."
Among the criticisms of Thiele have been his exaggeration of the efforts he made at saving the 106th Air Rescue Group stationed at Gabreski Airport in Westhampton, when party regulars credit Hank Beck for the hard work in getting that accomplished.
Of more concern to many is Thiele's apparent leanings in favor of the Death Penalty, which has become a newly divisive issue in Suffolk politics -- especially, in light of the number of mistakes uncovered by the Innocence Project. The Progressive wind blowing through Long Island is another reason for concern over this issue. The Marty Tankleff case supporters point out that there would be no issue at all to debate had there been a Death Penalty option available to the judge when this case was originally decided (by former Sheriff Tisch). The Braslow decision is still keeping political observers and the media on the edge of their seats. Contrary to the wish of many, this controversy and potential corruption case will only blow up if Tankleff is denied a new trial for the murder of his parents 17 years ago.
For some, Thiele's claim to have fostered numerous bills in the Assembly, seem to be followed up with -- well, nothing. While much legislation has been proposed, few of these initiatives have resulted in passage -- as compared to the lip-service it has afforded him.
There is the distinct sense that Fred Thiele has produced more smoke and mirrors than substance -- unless you call trying to kill the Shinnecocks right to self-determination, substance.
Treewolf is a union guy who is working the grass roots and is another of the local, honest, hard working New Politicians -- who is progressive and honest. Thiele has consistently opposed worker-friendly legislation. We have no comment on the honest and progressive part. He appears to be the worst combination of Hamptons elitist, who, along with the characters running Town Hall in Southampton, care absolutely nothing for the non-resident tax-paying property owners. While they plan to demand the right to vote in local elections, New Yorkers cannot even get a voice in local government. Many times we have stated that there needs to be a Hamptons Advocate appointment at Town Hall -- not some local Heaney favorite who knows nothing of our concerns.
We hope to catch up with Treewolf and give you more information on his campaign. As with other successful candidates, like Sheriff Vince DeMarco, the Integrity Party is less about politics than it is about rooting out corruption and taking a stand on issues.
Tim Laube, the Deputy Mayor of the Village of Westhampton Beach, is weighing his options carefully. Although he has been mulling over whether to run for Mayor (since Strebel is retiring due to his wife's illness), he has had to reconsider his choices since having been appointed as Clerk of the Legislature. It's been almost 30 years since the Democrats have gained control of this body and he has an exciting opportunity. It's quite a choice to have to make, but one which we hope he will soon decide to make -- to do both jobs. He promises that he will be making his decision in the next couple of weeks.
While we are on the subject, however, one of Laube's pet projects is to get sewers installed in the Village. Right now, behind many of the establishments along Main Street, including restaurants, the waste has to be pumped out on a regular basis to avoid dumping directly into the waters adjacent to the Village. When serious storms hit, the overflow and seepage is not a pretty picture -- one which could prove to be quite a Health crisis. Many stores are not legally operating but the Village has no choice but to look the other way for the sake of the local economy.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Hamptons Voting Revisited
For those of you who have managed to buy a house in the Hamptons -- whether you only visit during the summer months or spend most of the year in the area, the issue of voting is a sore point. Elections in most of the Hampton (Incorporated) Villages are typically held in June. The Town Supervisor elections (Easthampton and Southampton), in which Town Council and Justice Court judges also run, is held in November as part of the County and National elections. That's Incorporated Villages in June, National, County and Town elections in November. This is where the problem lies. This is important since most of us are aware of the fact that you can only vote once in an election that includes candidates for national office or local office. For example, you could not have legally voted for President Bush in the Hamptons and John Kerry in New York City in the previous Presidential election. One man or woman, one vote. That's the rational.
Beyond that it gets trickier. The reason why we vote is to choose among candidates to represent us in political office who make decisions about how to spend the money we pay in property taxes. You might remember that taxation without representation was the rallying cry and the raison d'etre for overthrowing the British regime in America. It is an abomination to Americans to pay taxes and not have the right to vote where those taxes are paid.
This is where the issue of paying property taxes, especially in a location like the Hamptons where these taxes fund the major portion of government's expenses, becomes a hot issue. When the collected taxes are those of non-resident property owners who spend a substantial amount of time in the community and collectively contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to Town and County coffers -- the ability to vote in elections is an inalienable right.
In the case of the Villages, the process is fairly simple. Contact the Suffolk County Board of Elections and request a registration form. Fill out the form and file it with your local Hamptons address in advance of the June election. Your summer address or weekend address will become your legal address during the election period and you may either leave it that way or change it back once the election is over. It is cumbersome but it can be done.
So far so good.
Unfortunately, the solution in Town and County elections is not so simple. Since you cannot vote in an election where candidates for National office are on the ballot in two places, you cannot vote in your primary residence and again in the Hamptons Town election. This is where cooperation and consideration by the Towns of Southampton and Easthampton matters most. If the local election were held on a different date, and voting for National elections were held in November -- in the Hamptons -- and if the Town Charter permitted property owners to vote in local elections -- the problem would be solved. Don't expect that to happen because both Towns have been getting a free ride for a long time and do not want to share spending control with those pesky out-of-towners. If people in these Towns are elected by margins of only 50 or 100 votes, allowing the thousands of New Yorkers with property to vote in local elections would be a disaster. And, then there's the issue of the money. Sharing the take on those millions is clearly not in sight.
Which is really too bad. Because there is precedent for permitting non-resident property owners to vote in local elections. They do so in Colorado and it can be done here -- IF they wanted it to happen.
The Town of Mountain Village in Colorado, for example, in their Charter included the provision for non-resident property owners to vote. They offered these rights -- and when this Town near Telluride faced a challenge to their having provided these rights, the Appeals court wrote:
"Plaintiffs (a group of residents) have failed to show that the Defendants' (the Town) reason for allowing nonresident landowners to vote in the Town. . . is either irrational or arbitrary. I find credible Defendants' contentions that the Town. . . is a unique resort community where nonresident landowners own the majority of property and pay more than eight times the amount of property tax. Defendants further assert that without the significant revenues the nonresident landowners have contributed to the Town, the Town might never have come into existence. Moreover, the nonresidents con-tinue to bear the weight of the financial burden for the Town. Defendants argue that providing the nonresident landowners the right to vote gives them a voice in the Town's future, including the taxes they will have to pay and how those taxes should be spent. . . These factors demonstrate that the Town had a rational basis for enacting the Charter provi-sion granting nonresident landowners the right to vote." (944 F. Supp. at 825)
And, further, the Appeal Court wrote:
"In this case it is clear that the nonresident property owners have a sufficient interest in Town affairs to make it rational for the Town to include them in the political process. Currently they pay approximately eight times more real property taxes in property taxes, and under the Charter, the Town has the power to establish land use standards, enact ordinances, adopt capital improvement programs, set tax rates, borrow money, issue bonds, create special improvement districts, control utilities, and to condemn property. Each of these powers has great potential to affect property owners in significant respects."
Perhaps we should strongly suggest that the crowd in Southampton Town Hall start making overtures to those who are paying the bills. If not, perhaps some of the non-resident property owners will start making some overtures to them. Of an entirely different sort. Like, litigation, perhaps?
Speaking of Town Hall in Southampton, we hear that there is a general feeling of nervousness about. For one thing, the surge of Democratic victories on Long Island may be giving pause. Although the Republicans did well in Southampton, it is clear that the handwriting on the wall is not good for them. The Crookhaven crowd elected a Democrat and one of that Town's escapees, Nuzzi, is now on the Town Board in Southampton. So, we have lame duck Heaney as Supervisor and a collection of relics from a bygone redneck era in dealing with people, especially minorities. Progressive politics and Democratic social policy is clearly on the march and the existing administration is on the defensive. What is their response? Find a new target -- the Latino immigrants who are generally castigated as the "illegals." County Executive Steve Levy has been duped in dealing with this issue and it has trickled down to the ecstatic Republicans still in Town Hall as a "license to kill." Watch carefully, the murder of a latino in Quogue was not an aberration.
The fact that most of the major politicians will be attending the Martin Luther King Day ceremony this week in Islandia where Reverend Cloverdale presides, and are mostly Democrats, underscores where the future lies. This event, which has grown over the last 20 years to the point where the 900 invited attendees jockey for a ticket, is telling. Even Heaney goes. Imagine that! The fact that the Shinnecock Nation, which is predominantly African-American at this point in its mixed blood heritage, will be building a casino in spite of the efforts to block them -- within two years (that's what we hear) -- is another example of racial indifference or outright hostility on the part of the Old Boy network that was handled badly. The fact that Heaney's family hails from Hampton Bays of old where they used to burn out black families, should not be lost on anyone. It's like having a sniper with his rifle aimed -- while negotiating with a perp for the release of a hostage. The Shinnecocks refused to fork over big payoffs to the Republicans and decided to push forward on their own.
Another reason for nervousness might also be found in the recent Federal indictments of Town officials on Long Island (not Southampton) for involvement with the "Asphalt Cartel," which has been reported in Newsday and the Daily News recently. The fact that people have been hauled away in chains because of alleged "contributions" emanating from Highway paving contracts, may be a source of concern. It is one of the worst kept secrets in the Town of Southampton that the Republican Party has been the happy recipient of lavish contributions from grateful vendors.
The re-election of Masterson as Highway Department chief by only a handful of votes over Mr. Gregor -- we predict -- will not happen next time. Gregor should stand by in case a new election is called. In any event, we hear, that the populace is tired of corruption and Gregor is their man.
Finally, we need to think about the answer to this question.
Why is it that the Justice Court in the Town of Southampton acts as if it is Above the Law? The Unified Court System REQUIRES that there be an evening session which would permit working people and, dare we say, property owners from outside of the Town -- attend court without hiring expensive local lawyers, without taking off from work. This has been ignored by the Justice Court. Because they can. Ponder this. Is this stupidity, is it arrogance, or is it another example of having been in power too long. The local people don't matter and the New Yorkers (who pay the bills) are hated.
For simple Code violations, the Town does not do what other civilized Towns do on Long Island. A simple letter to the homeowner advising them of a problem that needs to be corrected, is the reasonable thing to do. But, not in Southampton. Several years ago, a slew of Criminal Summonses were sent out to hundreds of homeowners (you know, those property owners who can't vote and therefore can't get these characters out of office), and threatening arrest for not appearing. Why? Because some of the homes either did not have a street number on it or it was not visible to the Code Enforcement cop who drove by. Be aware of this problem because it portends a way of bilking non-resident tax-paying homeowners in a way that would have been the envy of the Gestapo.
This is an example of the arrogance of politicians who collect your money and give back nothing but hostility and indifference.
Think about that.
In the Village of Westhampton Beach, one of the local luminaries, Simon of Beach Bakery, was about to be railroaded. Simon is a well-known businessman who offers his time and baked goods each year for a number of events including the Easter Egg hunt held for the all of the children and is the first Hamptons bakery to offer kosher baked goods. Even Rabbi Schneier of the Hamptons Synagogue eats there. Dick Haefeli, the renowned prosecutor of the Village had cited Simon with a number of fines for the egregious act of bringing music to Main Street. Live singer-guitarists played evenings in front of his Bakery and, frankly, brought a little life the local businesses and kept shops open a little longer. While they were a tad too loud at times and spawned copycat players down the street, it was a welcomed surprise.
In Judge Kelly's courtroom, attorney George Guldi appeared to defend Simon and onlookers were treated to a rare view of the Village's attitude towards criminal prosecution. When Kelly asked why the case had lingered so long, Haefeli chimed in that it didn't matter -- that justice was long overdue since his arrainment in September. He wanted severe penalties. When attorney Guldi pointed out the there was clearly a lack of attention in prosecuting this case (which was bullshit in the first case) and that Simon had been deprived of a speedy trial -- Haefeli sputtered and said "that doesn't matter." So much for justice. Judge Kelly had 40 jurors in the next room for a real case -- he dismissed the charges.
We hope that Deputy Mayor Tim Laube is paying attention to the way in which matters are being handled. We understand that he is a viable candidate for Mayor once Strebel's term is up.
Beyond that it gets trickier. The reason why we vote is to choose among candidates to represent us in political office who make decisions about how to spend the money we pay in property taxes. You might remember that taxation without representation was the rallying cry and the raison d'etre for overthrowing the British regime in America. It is an abomination to Americans to pay taxes and not have the right to vote where those taxes are paid.
This is where the issue of paying property taxes, especially in a location like the Hamptons where these taxes fund the major portion of government's expenses, becomes a hot issue. When the collected taxes are those of non-resident property owners who spend a substantial amount of time in the community and collectively contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to Town and County coffers -- the ability to vote in elections is an inalienable right.
In the case of the Villages, the process is fairly simple. Contact the Suffolk County Board of Elections and request a registration form. Fill out the form and file it with your local Hamptons address in advance of the June election. Your summer address or weekend address will become your legal address during the election period and you may either leave it that way or change it back once the election is over. It is cumbersome but it can be done.
So far so good.
Unfortunately, the solution in Town and County elections is not so simple. Since you cannot vote in an election where candidates for National office are on the ballot in two places, you cannot vote in your primary residence and again in the Hamptons Town election. This is where cooperation and consideration by the Towns of Southampton and Easthampton matters most. If the local election were held on a different date, and voting for National elections were held in November -- in the Hamptons -- and if the Town Charter permitted property owners to vote in local elections -- the problem would be solved. Don't expect that to happen because both Towns have been getting a free ride for a long time and do not want to share spending control with those pesky out-of-towners. If people in these Towns are elected by margins of only 50 or 100 votes, allowing the thousands of New Yorkers with property to vote in local elections would be a disaster. And, then there's the issue of the money. Sharing the take on those millions is clearly not in sight.
Which is really too bad. Because there is precedent for permitting non-resident property owners to vote in local elections. They do so in Colorado and it can be done here -- IF they wanted it to happen.
The Town of Mountain Village in Colorado, for example, in their Charter included the provision for non-resident property owners to vote. They offered these rights -- and when this Town near Telluride faced a challenge to their having provided these rights, the Appeals court wrote:
"Plaintiffs (a group of residents) have failed to show that the Defendants' (the Town) reason for allowing nonresident landowners to vote in the Town. . . is either irrational or arbitrary. I find credible Defendants' contentions that the Town. . . is a unique resort community where nonresident landowners own the majority of property and pay more than eight times the amount of property tax. Defendants further assert that without the significant revenues the nonresident landowners have contributed to the Town, the Town might never have come into existence. Moreover, the nonresidents con-tinue to bear the weight of the financial burden for the Town. Defendants argue that providing the nonresident landowners the right to vote gives them a voice in the Town's future, including the taxes they will have to pay and how those taxes should be spent. . . These factors demonstrate that the Town had a rational basis for enacting the Charter provi-sion granting nonresident landowners the right to vote." (944 F. Supp. at 825)
And, further, the Appeal Court wrote:
"In this case it is clear that the nonresident property owners have a sufficient interest in Town affairs to make it rational for the Town to include them in the political process. Currently they pay approximately eight times more real property taxes in property taxes, and under the Charter, the Town has the power to establish land use standards, enact ordinances, adopt capital improvement programs, set tax rates, borrow money, issue bonds, create special improvement districts, control utilities, and to condemn property. Each of these powers has great potential to affect property owners in significant respects."
Perhaps we should strongly suggest that the crowd in Southampton Town Hall start making overtures to those who are paying the bills. If not, perhaps some of the non-resident property owners will start making some overtures to them. Of an entirely different sort. Like, litigation, perhaps?
Speaking of Town Hall in Southampton, we hear that there is a general feeling of nervousness about. For one thing, the surge of Democratic victories on Long Island may be giving pause. Although the Republicans did well in Southampton, it is clear that the handwriting on the wall is not good for them. The Crookhaven crowd elected a Democrat and one of that Town's escapees, Nuzzi, is now on the Town Board in Southampton. So, we have lame duck Heaney as Supervisor and a collection of relics from a bygone redneck era in dealing with people, especially minorities. Progressive politics and Democratic social policy is clearly on the march and the existing administration is on the defensive. What is their response? Find a new target -- the Latino immigrants who are generally castigated as the "illegals." County Executive Steve Levy has been duped in dealing with this issue and it has trickled down to the ecstatic Republicans still in Town Hall as a "license to kill." Watch carefully, the murder of a latino in Quogue was not an aberration.
The fact that most of the major politicians will be attending the Martin Luther King Day ceremony this week in Islandia where Reverend Cloverdale presides, and are mostly Democrats, underscores where the future lies. This event, which has grown over the last 20 years to the point where the 900 invited attendees jockey for a ticket, is telling. Even Heaney goes. Imagine that! The fact that the Shinnecock Nation, which is predominantly African-American at this point in its mixed blood heritage, will be building a casino in spite of the efforts to block them -- within two years (that's what we hear) -- is another example of racial indifference or outright hostility on the part of the Old Boy network that was handled badly. The fact that Heaney's family hails from Hampton Bays of old where they used to burn out black families, should not be lost on anyone. It's like having a sniper with his rifle aimed -- while negotiating with a perp for the release of a hostage. The Shinnecocks refused to fork over big payoffs to the Republicans and decided to push forward on their own.
Another reason for nervousness might also be found in the recent Federal indictments of Town officials on Long Island (not Southampton) for involvement with the "Asphalt Cartel," which has been reported in Newsday and the Daily News recently. The fact that people have been hauled away in chains because of alleged "contributions" emanating from Highway paving contracts, may be a source of concern. It is one of the worst kept secrets in the Town of Southampton that the Republican Party has been the happy recipient of lavish contributions from grateful vendors.
The re-election of Masterson as Highway Department chief by only a handful of votes over Mr. Gregor -- we predict -- will not happen next time. Gregor should stand by in case a new election is called. In any event, we hear, that the populace is tired of corruption and Gregor is their man.
Finally, we need to think about the answer to this question.
Why is it that the Justice Court in the Town of Southampton acts as if it is Above the Law? The Unified Court System REQUIRES that there be an evening session which would permit working people and, dare we say, property owners from outside of the Town -- attend court without hiring expensive local lawyers, without taking off from work. This has been ignored by the Justice Court. Because they can. Ponder this. Is this stupidity, is it arrogance, or is it another example of having been in power too long. The local people don't matter and the New Yorkers (who pay the bills) are hated.
For simple Code violations, the Town does not do what other civilized Towns do on Long Island. A simple letter to the homeowner advising them of a problem that needs to be corrected, is the reasonable thing to do. But, not in Southampton. Several years ago, a slew of Criminal Summonses were sent out to hundreds of homeowners (you know, those property owners who can't vote and therefore can't get these characters out of office), and threatening arrest for not appearing. Why? Because some of the homes either did not have a street number on it or it was not visible to the Code Enforcement cop who drove by. Be aware of this problem because it portends a way of bilking non-resident tax-paying homeowners in a way that would have been the envy of the Gestapo.
This is an example of the arrogance of politicians who collect your money and give back nothing but hostility and indifference.
Think about that.
In the Village of Westhampton Beach, one of the local luminaries, Simon of Beach Bakery, was about to be railroaded. Simon is a well-known businessman who offers his time and baked goods each year for a number of events including the Easter Egg hunt held for the all of the children and is the first Hamptons bakery to offer kosher baked goods. Even Rabbi Schneier of the Hamptons Synagogue eats there. Dick Haefeli, the renowned prosecutor of the Village had cited Simon with a number of fines for the egregious act of bringing music to Main Street. Live singer-guitarists played evenings in front of his Bakery and, frankly, brought a little life the local businesses and kept shops open a little longer. While they were a tad too loud at times and spawned copycat players down the street, it was a welcomed surprise.
In Judge Kelly's courtroom, attorney George Guldi appeared to defend Simon and onlookers were treated to a rare view of the Village's attitude towards criminal prosecution. When Kelly asked why the case had lingered so long, Haefeli chimed in that it didn't matter -- that justice was long overdue since his arrainment in September. He wanted severe penalties. When attorney Guldi pointed out the there was clearly a lack of attention in prosecuting this case (which was bullshit in the first case) and that Simon had been deprived of a speedy trial -- Haefeli sputtered and said "that doesn't matter." So much for justice. Judge Kelly had 40 jurors in the next room for a real case -- he dismissed the charges.
We hope that Deputy Mayor Tim Laube is paying attention to the way in which matters are being handled. We understand that he is a viable candidate for Mayor once Strebel's term is up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
