Comments on: Kent Manor litigation

By: Cliff Narbey

Cliff Narbey — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:56:41 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:46:20 +0000

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.

By: Cliff Narbey

Cliff Narbey — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:41:22 +0000

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!

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:42:23 +0000

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?

By: Ann Olson

Ann Olson — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:21:05 +0000

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.