THIS WAS IN THE JOURNAL NEWS
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Port Chester eminent-domain case
By LIZ SADLERTHE JOURNAL NEWS
A Port Chester businessman has lost his much-publicized bid to present his eminent domain case against the village to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court refused yesterday to consider the case of Bart Didden, whose downtown property was seized by the village to clear the way for a chain drug store. The lawsuit sought to clarify the court's opinion in the controversial 2005 eminent domain case of Kelo v. New London, which permitted the city to take over property from one private owner and transfer it to another as part of an economic revitalization project.
"We're sad, of course," Didden said of the decision. "We still believe that what happened here was deplorably wrong, and that the courts made huge errors in considering the case and that the Supreme Court should have considered the review."
Lawyers for the village and the developer, however, hailed the court's decision as a fitting end to a hostile legal battle in which Didden has publicly accused the developer, G & S Investors of Bethpage, Long Island, of trying to bribe him. Lawyers vociferously deny his extortion claims, dismissing discussions in 2003 between Didden and G & S as typical settlement negotiations.
"Don't feel sorry for Mr. Didden; he received three times the value of what he paid for the property," said Mark Weingarten, a lawyer for G & S. "That just wasn't enough for him; he wanted to say, 'G & S, you put all this investment into the village and I should be able to profit from it.' "
Didden bought the North Main Street property 14 years ago with Domenick Bologna for $300,000, and had obtained village approvals to build a CVS on the site. But the village condemned the property in January 2004 to allow G & S to erect a Walgreens as part of a massive $100 million downtown redevelopment project.
According to Didden, they were compensated for $975,000.
The pair sued the village and the developer, attempting to halt the condemnation. A federal judge refused to stop the property seizure, and the case landed in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed it in April on the grounds that a three-year statute of limitations had expired when Didden sued.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit attracted the attention of opponents of the Kelo decision, including the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, a law firm that pursues civil- liberties cases. The firm offered to present Didden's case to the Supreme Court, hoping to further restrict the use of eminent domain across the country.
"The factual allegations in the case were so outrageous, and the use of eminent domain as a way of getting more money from people is so obviously abusive that we thought it would be a very clear case for the court to take and say something about using eminent domain in that way," said Dana Berliner, a lawyer with the law firm.
"I am certainly very disappointed," she said. "The Supreme Court is going to have to look at this issue again soon. It should have done it again today, but it didn't. The use of eminent domain continues to run rampant throughout the country and the court is not going to be able to avoid it for very long."
Mark Tulis, a lawyer for the village, said it would have been unlikely for the court to re-examine Kelo a little over a year after the landmark decision. The Didden lawsuit was different from the New London case because the Port Chester property was in a blighted area, not a low- and middle-income neighborhood, he added.
"I'm gratified that the court, in effect, upheld the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that the village did nothing wrong and always acted in an appropriate and fair manner," Tulis said. "What really disturbed me about this is Mr. Didden tried to convert a settlement negotiation into something more."
Meanwhile, Didden has announced his intention to run for village trustee on the Republican line, a move which drew questions about a conflict of interest because of the pending lawsuit. Though a state Supreme Court case to determine the value of the property is still pending, Didden said yesterday's decision should put an end to partisan accusations about his loyalties.
"It removes all of the discussion points that the Democrats may have had that I have an ongoing lawsuit against the village," Didden said. "Clearly, the state action is within my acknowledged rights within the New York State law. The federal issue was larger than me and Port Chester. It still needs to be decided somewhere and hopefully the Supreme Court in the future will pick up the case."
THIS WAS IN THE NORTH COUNTY NEWS
YORKTOWN: Eminent domain law
Town board limits land grab
By Adriane Tillman
Eminent domain lost some of its sting in Yorktown as the Town Board approved a law this week prohibiting the municipality from seizing private property for economic development. The law passed unanimously at the board meeting on Tuesday, January 16 despite comments from Supervisor Linda Cooper that the law is superfluous. Councilman Nicholas Bianco drafted the law to counteract a Supreme Court decision permitting private developers to take property for economic revitalization. The Supreme Court decision, the landmark Kelo v. New London, Connecticut case, also allowed for municipalities to draft their own legislation on the matter. While Yorktown’s new law affirms the town’s right to seize private land for public uses, such as for roads or hospitals, the statute states that economic development is not public use.“The public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health, shall not constitute a public use,” reads the law. United Taxpayers of Yorktown Vice President Linda Clemenza championed the law but said it should have been more specific in defining what constitutes a public entity. Furthermore, it should have spelled out how the town would compensate a homeowner if the property is taken. “We wanted it better defined so it wouldn’t be thrown in our faces later on in the future,” Clemenza said.Residents’ concerns spurred Bianco to initiate the law, coupled with his belief that private property should be taken for public projects like sewers and roads—not to build Costco superstores, he said. Cooper viewed the law as unnecessary because she believes safeguards already exist to protect residents’ homes. “Unlike New York City, we’re pretty close to a no-growth town,” she said. “It’s not a tool that we would use in any event. But it will make people feel comfortable on an issue that has been polarized.”
MY COMMENTS ON ABOVE ARTICLES
In light of the "Supreme's" recent action in NOT reviewing the lower courts decisions regarding Portchester, where if you remember the courts allowed a builder, after failing to blackmail a property owner into giving him money and a percentage, convinced the Portchester officials to use eminent domain as approved by the "Kelo" decision to take said property, the necessity of the Yorktown town board to take this action. Proper credit should be given Councilman Nick Bianco for spearheading this new law. In the majority opinion of the "Kelo" decision, written by Justice Stevens, it is allowable by local municipalities to limit their use of eminent domain, in fact urged. What should not be surprising is the need for this kind of restriction in the first place. This is one of the all but inevitable results of the "living, breathing Constitution" mentality. Since upholding "Mcain-Feingold" which ripped apart the first amendment's protection of free political speech (Congress shall make NO law etc....), in effect making this law the "incumbent protection act". Their changing of the "freedom OF religion" clause to read now "freedom FROM religion", by adding a new clause "separation of church and state" by judicial edict as that phrase is not found anywhere in the Constitution. Then of course the "Kelo" decision changing again by judicial edict the "takings clause" that in the Constitution reads "public USE" to now read"public GOOD". This is what happens when nine lawyers in robes act as if they are nine popes. All of these ruling have in common the increasing the power of the federal government over the people. As such these rulings fly in the face of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. The Constitution is a LIMITING document in regards to the power of government towards the people. We are a representative republic, where laws are written by the legislative branch, where the public has redress through the voting process when the public feels the government has grown too intrusive. The judiciary's responsibility is to review said laws for legality, not write or re-write laws, as been their wont. The answer to this usurpation of power by the Judiciary is to look for originalist judges to sit on the bench. Judges who will judge OUR laws by OUR Constitution ONLY, not by looking at international law to make their OPINION the law of the land. Until we stop electing to represent us, lawmakers willing to appoint judges who are willing to do an end-run around the legislative branch, we will continue to have these rulings. In the end, WE THE PEOPLE (remember that phrase) are at fault for thinking that because one wears a robe, they are the smartest person in the room. As I said before, we are a representative republic, because the "founding fathers" WANTED us to have that redress through the voting process, as that is the true "CHECKS AND BALANCES".
***********************************************************************************
THIS WAS IN THE JOURNAL NEWS
Rockland proposal would ban smoking in cars with kids
By JANE LERNERTHE JOURNAL NEWS
Dr. Jeffrey Oppenheim
(Original publication: January 18, 2007)
RAMAPO - Add automobiles to the growing list of places where smokers might soon be banned from lighting up.
The Rockland County Board of Health adopted a resolution yesterday recommending that the county "study the possibility of prohibiting smoking in automobiles when children under the age of 18 are present."
"It makes a great deal of sense to prohibit smoking in cars," said Dr. Jeffrey Oppenheim, a neurosurgeon and the member of the board who proposed the ban. "Children don't have a choice when someone lights a cigarette in a car with closed windows."
The county's health commissioner, Dr. Joan Facelle, said she was in favor of the idea.
"The time is right to address this," said Facelle, a pediatrician.
Facelle said she would propose the idea to County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. He was unavailable for comment yesterday, but a spokeswoman said it would be reviewed for possible referral to the county Legislature.
Legislature Chairwoman Harriet Cornell, D-West Nyack, said she would be willing to look into the proposal.
"Smoke in a small, closed environment like an automobile has the potential of damaging the health of children or young people, so it's definitely something we ought to look at very closely," she said.
Mount Ivy resident John Rivera was smoking a cigarette while waiting for a bus outside the Department of Health building yesterday. He said that even though he smokes, he supports such a ban.
"It's a terrible thing to smoke in the car with your kids in it," he said. "You really shouldn't do it."
Dwayne Jones of Spring Valley, who was also smoking while waiting for a bus, was not so sure the measure was a good idea.
"Why should someone tell me what I can do in my own car?" he said.
Laws prohibiting smoking in automobiles are becoming increasingly common, said Matt Barry, director of policy research for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group.
"It's a fairly recent phenomenon," he said.
Louisiana, Arkansas, Puerto Rico and Bangor, Maine, have recently enacted laws banning smoking in cars when children are present, Barry said.
"The evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to children is so overwhelming that it trumps all other arguments," he said.
But Jonathan Pinard, New York state coordinator for The Smoker's Club, a grass-roots group that advocates smokers' rights, said there is no need for such laws.
"It's one of those things that is not necessary to legislate," said Pinard, a banker who lives in Hauppauge, Long Island. "Very few people smoke in cars with closed windows with their kids."
Oppenheim said it would be up to the county to decide if such a ban should be part of Rockland's sanitary code or if a separate law should be enacted.
The neurosurgeon said he didn't think it would be a difficult measure to enforce.
"The police stop you if you're not wearing a seat belt," he said. "Why shouldn't they stop you if you are smoking in a car with a child in it?"
Reach Jane Lerner at jlerner@lohud.com or 845-578-2458.
MY COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE
When did liberty loose it's meaning? Freedom means the protection of the unpopular, the annoying, the ability to go to hell with one's self. When did we decide to let the government dictate personal behavior, and why? First they used onerous taxation, then they trampled the rights of private business, now personal property is no longer safe. Just because it is smoking, doesn't make it right. Soon they will be coming in your house, it is the next logical step. Don't you see this is more of a political movement than science. Each step they take involves the removal of another liberty, increasing the power of government. Don't you see once you allow the removal of someone's liberty because you don't like it, because you find it annoying,
another group can come into power and remove you liberty. This eraser has two ends, and can only lead to tyranny of the majority. Right now in California the lawmakers are trying to enact a law that will throw you in jail for up to a year for spanking your child. This smoking ban is not only being contemplated in Rockland, but the State legislators are mulling over the same measure with a $500.00 attached. You must decide if smoking bans are more important than liberty. If you don't see that, than your liberties are in jeapardy.
************************************************************************************
THIS IS FROM YOUR COUNTY LEGISLATOR GEORGE OROS
FOR NOW A VICTORY FOR ETHICS
Dear Friend,
Last night the Republican Conference of the Westchester County Board of Legislators scored a victory for ethics and open government, and we thought you should know.
At the January 22, 2007 Board of Legislators meeting a vote was scheduled by the democrat majority that would have substantially watered down the County’s financial disclosure law. The law, enacted some 20 years ago, is designed to prevent conflicts of interest. It requires certain individuals who work for or set policy for local, county and state government to file annually a statement of financial holdings. This filing allows you the public and the media to scrutinize those in the public arena who make decisions daily that affect your life. You need to be assured that those decisions are made in your interest and not in someone’s personal best interests.
The democrat proposal would have exempted from the so-called long form of financial disclosure many policy making and administrative bodies. Ironically, the County Board of Ethics, whose charge is to collect these forms and enforce the provisions of disclosure and the ethics code, was itself to be exempted. Other important bodies such as the Board of Health, Plumbing Examiners Board and Prequalification Board would be exempt. The Prequalification Board is a group of citizens appointed by the County Executive who determine if you or your business is fit or qualified to do business with the County. Don’t you agree that someone making that type of decision should have to disclose their own financial interests? We do.
After lengthy debate in which all republican members pointed out the fallacy of this law, we convinced the democrat majority to return the measure back to Committee for further revision. So, for the time being, the disclosure requirements remain on the books for all public officials, boards and agencies. We aim to keep it that way.
As the minority conference it is unusual to overturn what was for all intent and purpose a “done deal”. If you can, you should watch this meeting and witness the debate. All your republican members put forth the logic and rationale so forcefully and clearly that those against disclosure had no alternative but to retreat.
We thought you would just like to know.
George Oros, Ursula LaMotte, James Maisano, Suzanne Swanson, Bernice Spreckman and Gordon Burrows
************************************************************************************
CONGRESSMAN JOHN HALL
A yes vote cast by our new Congressman removed 16 billion dollars in tax brakes to BIG OIL. Oh yes, we finally got to stick it to BIG OIL, or did we? The tax brake eliminated was for new DOMESTIC exploration and drilling. Another thing you may not be aware of is that corporations DO NOT pay taxes. We, the consumers do in the higher prices (on all petroleum based products, like gas) we will pay as those cost are passed down to us. This measure also insures will be even more dependant on foreign sources of petroleum. The delicious irony is that those foreign workers drilling for that oil will probably be non-union and paid less than our new national minimum wage.
Another measure that our new Congressman is proud of reduces the interest on federally subsidized student loans from the present 6.8% to 3.4% by 2011. To accomplish this feel good measure two things must happen. one) anyone getting a loan this year pays 6.12%. two) (a little backtracking here), in one of the few(very)measures passed during the first one-hundred hours the new Congress voted "pay as you go", meaning for every tax decrease, you must find the funds to finance it somewhere else. So, in light of this, to fund the 7 billion dollars needed for this loan savings, the Congress will be cutting other student-loan programs. Looks to me like the "new direction" we were promised when the Democrats take over Congress is a backwards direction.
************************************************************************************
PEEKSKILL
Recently another blog has tried to tie into the recent school board vote, newly elected Peekskill Democrat chair Darren Rigger. I find this totally unfair as I believe Darren had no knowledge of the behind the scenes goings on. I also know this is not the way Darren operates. To do this takes away the validity of the rest of the message. When one is going to attack someone, they should make sure their information is accurate.
************************************************************************************
TARGET STORE..... THIS WAS IN THE JOURNAL NEWS.......
Plans still in the works to bring Target store to PeekskillBy MARCELA ROJASTHE JOURNAL NEWS(Original publication: January 24, 2007)PEEKSKILL -Plans to bring the national retailer Target to the city's industrial south end have not quite hit the bull's-eye yet.The City Council voted 5-2 late last year to bring the big-box emporium to a 9-acre parcel off Louisa Street, foregoing another development proposal for a distribution center there.Environmental testing of the site took place Monday by the developer, RD Management, with results expected in the coming weeks, said Marcus Serrano, deputy city manager and comptroller."Target did send a letter that they are interested in the property. ... It's just making sure that all due diligence is completed," Serrano said. "We're extremely close to getting this done; we just have some fine-tuning left."RD Management is planning to purchase the land now owned by BASF, a New Jersey-based chemical company. BASF took over the land after it acquired pigment manufacturing company Engelhard Corp. last year. BASF did not return calls.RD Management built Mount Kisco Commons, a 187,000-square-foot retail center that opened in 2005 and is home to northern Westchester's first Target store. Rick Birdoff, a principal of RD Management, did not return calls.The proposed 129,000-square-foot Peekskill store, near the intersection of Louisa and Lower South streets, would be an economic boon to the city, providing 200 to 300 jobs and $400,000 in tax revenues, officials said. The project would sit near N. Dain's Sons Lumber Company, which is planning to relocate to Lower South Street, along with other home-improvement stores, to property occupied by Karta Corp., a recycling and solid-waste company that is shutting down most of its operations."It's very exciting. People are very anxious for it to be here," said Mayor John Testa. "It speaks to where we've come as a city to have a Target interested in coming here."The $15 million to $18 million project, however, did spur opposition. Councilwomen Drew Claxton and Mary Foster voted against the suggestion of bringing Target to that specific location."We would prefer to see Target in a more retail-oriented part of town," Foster said.Early last year, more than 100 residents signed a petition arguing that a large retailer would bring noise, pollution and traffic to the area. Joan Lefkowitz, a resident of the Riverbend waterfront condominiums, was among the petitioners and said she would have preferred a park or a recreational and/or arts facility there."Our intention was not to keep Target out of Peekskill," Lefkowitz said. "It was just that many of the residents were not in favor of the location."But now that the city has set its sights on Target, the group is hoping to work with the city to make the project "the least invasive as possible," Lefkowitz said."Being good citizens, we want to make the best of it," she said. "Our intention is to have the city make it fit in as best as possible."
************************************************************************************
GOVENOR ELLIOT SPITZER
As my recent letter to the Journal news said, the Governor wants to remove the requirement that DMV verify the Social Security number of new applicants for drivers licence's. He also said he will ignore Federal law requiring proof of citizenship when applying for medicaid. He is also discontinuing the practice of fingerprinting applicants. I once wrote that wee did not need the "scourge of wall street" the scourge of job creators and taxpayers, we needed a "scourge of Albany", some one who will fight waste and fraud of taxpayer dollars. As Attorney General, he ignored that fraud, and now as Governor he wishes to welcome more of it. I guess he was right, on day one things will change, our mistake was thinking it would be for the betterment of the taxpayer.
************************************************************************************
MY LETTER TO THE JOURNAL NEWS
State too lenient on lawbreakers: After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, then-Gov. George Pataki directed the Department of Motor Vehicles to require applicants for drivers licenses to provide verifiable Social Security numbers. Now Gov. Eliot Spitzer is looking to relax that law. This makes it possible for people who cannot get a Social Security number legitimately to now use one not achieved by legal means because DMV will not be verifying its legality.
New York is only one of nine states that now requires verification. Never mind that the hijackers who successfully attacked the World Trade Center in 2001 had 19 forged licenses from other states; our new governor now wishes to join the other 41 states making it easier to get a forged license.
Federal law prohibits the giving of in-state college tuition to people not here legally, yet our state legislators passed a law to ignore that law. Recently a federal judge ruled in Mamaroneck village that day laborers may loiter for the purpose of committing a crime (getting paid off the books). How many areas in this county, never mind the state, set up shelters to allow this practice?
We allow people who are not here legally to use our schools and social programs (that our taxes pay for) for working off the books, not paying taxes, or using forged Social Security numbers to get a job.
What I wish to inquire is, as a law-abiding, tax-paying, legal citizen of this state and country, what laws am I allowed to break and get amnesty?
Anthony J. Bazzo
Shrub Oak
************************************************************************************
SITES TO LINK UP TO:PLAN PUTNAM: planputnam@yahoogroups.com/PLAN PUTNAM BLOG: http://planputnam.blogspot.com/PEEKSKILL GUARDIAN: http://peekskillguardian.blogspot.com/NORTH COUNTY NEWS: http://northcountynews.com/THE JOURNAL NEWS: http://thejournalnews.com/PEEKSKILL DEMOCRATS: http://www.peekskilldems.com/PEEKSKILL REPUBLICANS: http://peekskillgop.com/
BAZZO 01/23/07
No comments:
Post a Comment