July, 2009
NYS spent the most per pupil of any state in 2006-2007, according to Census Bureau
Submitted by JohnB on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 8:43amThe Census Bureau released a report today that shows New York spent the most
per pupil of any state in the nation in the 2006-07 school year, spending
$15,981 per pupil and more than 60 percent the national average of $9,666.
E.J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New
York State Policy, points out on his blog
<http://www.nyfiscalwatch.com/?p=1574> that New York's school spending of
nearly $51 billion was less than only California, which has double the
number of students.
McMahon argues that the high spending is the result of higher salaries and
benefits. He said the New York's spending on salaries and benefits came to
$11,042 per pupil, 88 percent above the national average.
Here's the Census report. <http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf>
Kent Manor litigation - letter to the editor "Putnam Courier"
Submitted by cnarbey on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 10:51am
Re.: Kent Manor lawsuit
Town of Kent Councilman Tartaro takes issue with the County Legislature’s decision to settle the lawsuit brought by the developers of the Kent Manor property.
In my opinion, there were misstatements of fact in "The Putnam County Courier's" report and correspondence on the Kent Manor litigation published in last week's issue.
I have today submitted the following letter to the "Courier's" Editor:
"Dear Sir,
I spent many hours reading the court documents in this case. Mr. Tartaro has been a councilman for more than 10 years and, I believe, has more knowledge of this litigation than I. He knows that the NYCDEP on May 8, 1998 gave conceptual approval to Kent Manor’s application for inclusion in the Phosphorous Offset Pilot Program, subject to the approval of either the Town or the County. He knows that on January 27, 1999 the County Watershed Administrator wrote that the County’s policy of "home rule" meant that the County would consider such approval a "local matter" for action solely by the Town. Further, Mr. Tartaro knows that a 1989 court-ordered Stipulation requires that the Town issue "all local approvals and consents necessary" for the construction of the Kent Manor project. He knows that the Town Board has not approved the project’s application for inclusion in the POPP and that the Town Building Inspector has not renewed the expired building permits already issued, despite the court’s orders.
Yet Mr. Tartaro rails against the County decision to extricate itself from the decades-long legal actions (a suit for damages and a tax certiorari action against alleged unfair assessments of property value). He claims that the County alone has denied the approvals for the project to continue.
The developer of this property alleges that the Town Assessor, supported by the local Board of Assessment Review, has over-assessed this property, placing a full market value on it for its highest and best use, while knowing that the development as residential condominiums could not proceed because the Town Board would not issue the necessary approvals.
So, Mr. Tartaro has known that Town taxpayers have paid lesser school and Kent taxes (except for their share of the County payments) and may eventually have to make this up, if the developer prevails in Court.
Yours sincerely,
Clifford G. Narbey
Kent Cliffs
Because of space limitations, I did not submit a final paragraph from my original draft, but I feel that it is important (and fits with Joyce Mitchell's report about this matter from the Town Board meeting of July 13 (see the category "Town Board Meeting" at left). So this is what was omitted from my letter to the Editor:"It is ironic that Mr. Tartaro protests the way in which the County legislators took their vote to extricate the County from these legal proceedings, when he has been a member of a Town Board that has discontinued videotaping of Workshops and some Town Board meetings, refused to give access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, does not comply with the Open meetings Law regarding Executive Sessions, denied that the Town is being sued for damages and does not even acknowledge receipt of correspondence from his constituents."
July 13th Town Board Meeting
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 9:18amThe town meeting for Kent began promptly last night at 7 PM with a statement read by Lou Tartaro, condemning the Putnam County legislature for their action regarding the Kent Manor affair. To quote from the Journal News and Susan Elan, “Putnam faced charges as a co-defendant for "conspiracy to deprive the property owner of constitutionally protected property rights."
Without offering any judgment about the legality or fiduciary position of our Town Board regarding past or current legislative or policy actions in re Kent Manor, I find it ironic that Mr. Tartaro, who publicly denied the existence of any legislation, was the one to read it. He has never apologized for his misstatement, retracted it, or acknowledged it.
Readers of KFW’s posted articles may recall that Cliff Narbey has been researching our town’s potential liability for months and at every attempt to discuss this with the Town Board has been met with a total shutout from Supervisor Doherty, who even refused to affirm or deny if we have insurance to cover the potential liability. But the press has stayed on it and Susan Elan has informed us that our potential liability is $16,000,000. My information is that we have only $1,000,000 in insurance coverage. If we lose, our town property taxes would be almost doubled.
Tom Maxson, a candidate for Town Council, also read a stirring condemnation of the Put County Legislature for leaving us on the hook for the full amount. And, to add insult to injury, the County will now move to recoup property taxes that they paid out to the Town of Kent and the Carmel School District on behalf of the Kent Manor developers who had not.. However offensive as that may seem, the County is acting in accord with the law and what they believe to be in their own interest. As County residents, is it in ours?
The Lake Carmel Cultural Center (aka Arts on the Lake) was voted $15,000 needed, apparently, to secure the $400,000 “grant” (another acronym for our tax dollars) to bring the old firehouse up to code. Let me make clear that I support Arts on the Lake with membership, attendance, and donation. But I am deeply disappointed that the promise of the organizers to develop this art center on private funds and to eschew tax dollars has not been kept.
Another item of particular interest to all was the continued advancement of the Supervisor’s agenda to extend her term of service from two to four years. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming number of comments on our poll and at the Public Hearing in February were against such a move, it is the plan of this Board to proceed with a referendum on our November ballot. The proposal, amended only for procedural errors, was voted on again, with only one dissenting vote from Karl Rohde. The only supporting public comment at the microphone was made by Ms. Doherty’s campaign manager.
Kent Fiscal Watch has invited the Supervisor to come to our Open Meeting in October and defend in debate what appears to be her self-serving proposal to double her term of office. So far, she is unopposed for the position this November, which gives her a guarantee of four years to pursue her policies. What is she afraid of? Why does she want to lock us into four years (giving her a total of six if she is elected?) Pawling tried this and has already changed back to a two-year term. Southeast voters changed to a four-year term and there is much unrest as a result.
All residents should take notice that there will be another Public Hearing about this attempt to change the Supervisor’s term of office. It will be held at Town Hall on August 17 at 7:00 PM. Please save the date and be there. And remember that this Supervisor (and Councilman Tartaro) served on the Board that helped put us at a liability of $16,000,000, tried to keep information about the litigation from us, and now asks our confidence and support for a longer term. The trial is scheduled to begin July 20. Stay tuned!
Putnam County settles with Kent Manor developers - Kent next?
Submitted by cnarbey on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 9:37amThe "Journal News" reported yesterday that Putnam County has reached an out-of-court settlement with the Kent Manor developers (read the story at http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009907130320). Readers' comments are shown on that page too.
This leaves our Town Board and its ineffective (my opinion) counsel alone to face the judge next Monday regarding damages our taxpayers may be ordered to pay by Justice O'Rourke I will attend that hearing and report o this website afterwards.
