Jeff Green wrote on Feb. 19 about the Kent Fiscal Watch concerns about the Kent Manor litigation. I am certain that you would have since read “The Journal News” article of March 5 on this subject, and the postings from readers in response. So, we have learned from Michael Risinit ” ‘There is a limit of liability of $1,000,000 and a $5,000 deductible,’ Lisa Weber, a managing claims counsel, for the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal wrote to the town in September.”.
This information that he has obtained is what I and other constituents wanted since August, 2008. The plaintiffs also have this information, as they have met with Daniel Seymour (lawyer for NYMIR, the insurance company) – I saw the documents evidencing their conferences in the court documents that I read at the Putnam County Clerk’s office – so my asking the Town to give its constituents this information would not have aided the plaintiffs at all.
I feel that the plaintiffs don’t give a rat’s behind about insurance – they are seeking money damages (including monies they paid to the Town for Parks & Rec. assessment, building permit and Planning Board fees) without regard to where the funds will be coming from.
Making claims for damages doesn’t mean that you win all you ask for, or even any of it. Then if you are awarded damages as plaintiff, the defendants can appeal. I feel strongly, from all that I’ve researched about this case, that the plaintiffs have a case and the longer it takes to get it settled, the more it will cost taxpayers. Some opportunities to settle this suit have already passed (including while the plaintiff was under Ch. 11 bankruptcy proceedings for 4 years). Now we have a recession – maybe another opportunity!
My issue is the apparent strategy of our Town elected officials and our Town Attorney (who has already profited mightily from the long drawn out litigation) and our municipal employees – to ignore the problem, say nothing, mislead and obfuscate constituents and – behold! – the problem will go away! I believe that is NOT going to happen. Maybe the defendants (plus NYS, I hope) ARE talking (in confidence, of course) about settling out of court, or buying the property (what a Recreation paradise that would be – maybe we could have a Kent Park (not the pseudo one on Gypsy Trail – or a Town Golf Course!).
I am also very troubled by the lack of integrity displayed by our elected representatives and a professional attorney – misinforming constituents about existence of litigation, no claim for damages being pled (Curtiss to me at Sept. 22, 2008 Town Board meeting) is serious misbehaviour, in my opinion.
Your point about the unpaid taxes is incorrect, in my opinion. If YOU had a property that was undevelopable (and unsaleable) because the Town denied you permits, would you pay taxes based upon a Full Market Value assessment that valued the property as BEING fully and readily developable or saleable? Whenever that tax certiorari litigation gets a decision, it will astound me if the Kent assessments are validated by a court.
I have posted some more content on the Kent Fiscal Watch website (www.kentfiscalwatch.org), including a chronology of the development and its litigation (prepared from the documents that I have obtained). I urge all to read that information.
Related posts:
Loading ...
I am so frustrated that my attempts to put my opinions out are so poor, so clumsy that you don’t understand me!
Let me try again.
First, I have never suggested that “the town simply roll belly-up and give the developer the money he wants and approve the project”. Where do you get that from? What I suggest (and it’s only my opinion, I am not elected or appointed, and my views may be ignored by those who are) is that the Town and other defendants negotiate a settlement of these 3 legal proceedings (damages claim, tax certiorari, in rem foreclosure) that will see this property remain as undeveloped land. My only personal experience with breach of contract lawsuits is as a corporate manager, where we (the management team, not me alone – I’m an accountant, not a lawyer) always negotiated a settlement, whether we were suing or being sued for breach of contract; we never went to court or dragged out the proceedings for years and years. The Kent Manor suit has been going on for 13 years! As the Journal News editors said last August, time to sh*t or get off the pot!
Second, why do you say “stay the course since it’s already been chosen for us for we cannot undo what previous administrations have done”? That isn’t doing anything, in my opinion, just going with the tide. The current administration now has the responsibility of concluding this matter, not previous administrations (which did include Mrs. Doherty and Mr. Tartaro) and they can remedy what has gone before.
Third, no judge is a stakeholder! The courts are the arbiter in any dispute. The stakeholders are the plaintiff and the defendants – in this case the residents and property owners of NYC, Westchester, Putnam County, the Town of Kent and all of NYS, if not the whole USA – plus the plaintiffs! How do you conclude that the only stakeholders are the developer and the judge?
So, here is my explicit suggestion. Get as many of these – Federal, NY State, Counties, Towns, Riverkeeper, Croton Clean Water Coalition, Putnam Land Trust, Putnam County Coalition to Preserve Open Space, PLAN Kent, PLAN Putnam, Hill and Dale homeowners, individual donors, etc., etc. – as can be gathered together and figure out how the Kent Manor property can be acquired in an equitable manner, so as to protect the Croton watershed and the environment for all of America. It will cost money, as the U.S. civilization will not permit the seizure of private property without fair compensation. I have said that I would donate to such a cause – will you? All, or some, of the above may very well be happening and – yes - it would have to be under a curtain of confidentiality at this point. It’d be nice to maybe get a hint from our Town Board that they are working on a plan, instead of this deathly silence!
I pray that I have made my views (they are only that) clearer ……
Incidentally, I ‘phoned the Putnam County Commissioner of Finance’s office yesterday. The property taxes on the Kent Manor property have been unpaid since 1991. Foreclosure just can’t happen while all this litigation is cluttering up the situation.
Cliff, I would hope we were all ‘environmentalists’ since if we don’t care for the planet we’re going to continue mucking it up though I don’t know what that has to do with the current legal situation at Kent Manor.
Yes, we can still stop it thought the best window for that opportunity has long since passed. And as for how the town should handle their strategy over the lawsuit, I have offered no suggestions other than to stay the course since it’s already been chosen for us for we cannot undo what previous administrations have done.
With that said, you seem to be full of advice but little of it is concrete enough to use. You say the town is putting taxpayers in jeapordy. What – explicitly – would you do different? You say the town isn’t ‘intelligently trying to work with all the stakeholders…’ yet as far as I can tell, right now there are only two: the developer and the judge.
There’s no one here who wants to see the town loose out on this deal though I am sure we are liable for certain fees paid a generation ago that cannot be undone. But the process has now moved to a point where outside influence can do little but muddy the waters and further confuse the issue, giving succor to the developer and his attorneys.
What I’m taking away from all this is that your suggesting the town simply roll belly-up and give the developer the money he wants and approve the project. If we do that without a fight, any two-bit developer that can walk will be lining up at the door seeking their share for some perceived slight from 20 years ago. The precedent set by the town if we roll-over now would be truly ruinous for our future.
You know, I may change my mind about all this as time goes on and as new – verifiable – information comes to the fore. But for now, that’s how I feel.
Kent Manor’s Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Application
Dear Jeff,
Aren’t YOU an “environmentalist”?
So what did you mean when you wrote (Mar. 17 under the post “Kent Manor’s Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Application”) “We can stop this thing”?
That sounds like an attempt to stop the development, without (in my opinion) a reasoned argument for frustrating the constitutional rights of a property owner to deal with its property and develop it in accordance with the law. The Town is, in my opinion, doing what you advocate, instead of intelligently trying to work with all the stakeholders to take this property out of development and retain it as open space. Instead, in my opinion, the Town and certain stakeholders, are putting all taxpayers (Town, County, City of NY and State) in jeopardy of a ruinous law suit.
Smarten up!
I’m wondering if you could tell us exactly what it is “environmentalists” have done that makes you believe they have something to do with this?
Thank you Cliff for explaining things. The longer public emotions rule this issue the more money we will be required to pay the plaintiffs. The bill continues to increase every day the town chooses to ignore trying to settle this lawsuit. The developer rules. The public and especially the environmentalists have not done their homework and are leading the rest of the town taxpayers into disastrous debt. It’s evident our public officials have let us down. They have lied to us about this lawsuit knowing full well it is the taxpayers who will end up paying for our political leader’s unscrupulous decisions made under a cloak of secrecy.