RE: Public Comments From Waterfront Business Owner, Henry R. Terry, Regarding The Incorporated Village of Patchogue Local Waterfront Redevelopment Program (LWRP) Plan Contacts C#005850 and C#006343.
Excerpts from letter to Director of the Village of Patchogue Local Waterfront Redevelopment Project:
The Village took on the dredging of the Patchogue River, and has circumvented SEQR, environmental Army Corps of Engineers regulations to the detriment of resident and navigability on the Patchogue River. The Village is not in possession of toxicity reports as they commenced the removal of various known contaminated materials. The containment devices used to insure the protection of the Village residents from these contaminants spoils ruptured allowing the known Patchogue River contaminants
to blow throughout the neighborhood (See Suffolk Life Article attached hereto).
The Village was notified of these events and did nothing to remedy the situation and as a result residents, as widely publicized on television on News 12, October 18th and 19th, 2008.
I have made a complaint to the Comptroller’s office regarding the LWRP Contract #C005850, and with regards to its impact upon the second LWRP under investigation for possible fraud. Please also note that the Village has been maintaining, for the past few months, in public forums, that it is not involved in another LWRP contract, in order to conceal their malfeasance concerning previous DOS LWRP Contract #005850 (See below).
I have been compelled to file various Article 78 Proceedings with the courts, due to the Village’s concealment and lack of compliance in giving me LWRP record and information. 06-14428, 07-23235 Despite the fact that the New York State Department of State contracts/grants granted the Village monies to have the resources to freely and openly provide information to the community.
The Village has also exasperated the concealment if information by misrepresenting Ms. Russo involvement as coordinator for the Village LWRP. This misrepresentation was done to in an effort to block community questioning regarding Village LWRP.
Although the “Patchogue Waterfront Revitalization: Village of Patchogue Notice of Public Information Meeting on the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWPR) Plan,” attached hereto, states that I may contact Marian H. Russo, she (1) misrepresents her position in the organization, denying that she is the co-director, (2) refuses to answer my questions, instead refers me to Village Attorneys, previously,
J. Lee Snead and presently Brian Egan, (3) refuses access to LWRP records and states that this is a Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) matter, and (4) refuses access to the process, which is intended to inform me as to the redevelopment plans with regards to the Patchogue waterfront revitalization. All this is being done despite the fact that I was appointed by Brian Weeks, former Deputy Mayor and ex-director of the Village’s LWRP, to be the spokesperson for Village residents (See previous objection by to LWRP #C005850). Village resident participation is guaranteed pursuant to the actual DOS contracts and was our federal laws.
As a Village resident and owner of a water dependent business along the Patchogue River, I should be able to speak to Ms. Russo regarding the Village LWRP, but she, like the Village, have taken an adversarial stance. I believe that the Village employees and Ms. Russo have taken this adversarial stance with me because I have chosen to exercise my first amendment rights and petition the government with regard to harms done to my water dependent business and residents. I also believe that the Village
does not like my participation in the LWRP process, representing those who take issue with this redevelopment process as it has been implemented. I have stated my concerns with respect to the redevelopment on the Patchogue Riverfront and the various environmental issues confronting us in the community.
The Village government is in violation of the LWRP contract. The contract ask that“rights of way be mediated.” Instead, the LWRP has become an opportunity for the Village to assert right to the Patchogue River bottom, rights they do not have, and “make land grab.” What the Village is actually doing is ceding right to those who have made campaign finance contribution. The Village has breach the Suffolk
County Maritime Plan. This plan put constraints on development. Instead the Village has ignored the plan and has rewarded certain community member’s development rights, in exchange for inappropriate campaign finance contribution to Village decision makers.
The following are my allegation with regards with Village impropriety regarding LWRP redevelopment in the Village and its agents:
THE LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS (LWRP) PLAN.
1. Under federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies and New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization/Redevelopment Programs and Policies grants/contracts, the Village was contracted by the New York State Department of State (“DOS”) to work with the Village residents and begin the process of redevelopment and revitalization along its Village coastal areas including the Patchogue River; programs also including the revitalization of “new and expanding water-dependent uses, such as marinas;” “to protect existing water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses and to promote their future sitting in accordance with the reasonably expected demand for such uses;” including “waterborne commerce” and “water-related public and quasi-public areas,” “water-enhanced uses are activities that do not require a location on the waterfront to function, but whose location on the waterfront could add to public enjoyment and use of the water’s edge, if properly designed and sited;” “water-dependent use as which includes so as to “subsidize the water-dependent use” and “enhance” them (herein and hereinafter referred to as “LWRP”).
2. Along these lines, I have sought, as was his legal right, to review compliance and other records under LWRP. I, on behalf of Village residents, and myself sought to obtain evidence that the Village met the LWRP requirements. At various times, I have been denied LWRP records and information through various Village excuses, tricks, distortions, improper, fraudulent, arbitrary, and capricious determinations
by the Village, Village Board of Trustees and officials including Village Clerk and custodian of Village records and J. Lee Snead, former Village Attorney and FOIL Appeal Records Officer. This blocking of access to records and information in and of itself violates LWRP policies and rules as they apply to the
LWRP grants/contracts, including grant/contract #C005850, and #C006343 that records be open to the public for audit and review. The Village unlawfully blocked access to records, particularly the LWRP “work products” and “DOS tasks” of the various LWRP grants/contracts, including LWRP Contract #C005850, and #C006343 thus defrauding residents and my legal rights to be informed, educated, reached, i.e. “public outreach” and “community consensus.”
3. Under the LWRP Grant #C005850 there was no “community consensus” and that “work product,” “Task 5: Project Scoping Meetings and meeting summaries” were doctored up to look as if the Village had reached “community” consensus. I believe that the LWRP plan has developed and incorporated new techniques to fraudulently manufacture “community consensus” (See public outreach comments below).
4. LWRP DOS and federal policies require “community consensus” and “public outreach” in the redevelopment and revitalization of its coastal areas. With respect to the LWRP, the Village is in breach of contract. For years the Village Board of Trustees has constructively denied me access to LWRP records though they have publicly promised the records. For many years and also on or about June 20, 2006, June 29, 2006, and throughout 2007, Village Clerk Patricia Seal and J. Lee Snead, Village Appeals Records Officer, have constructively denied access to LWRP records, which should be available
to public under the LWRP federal policies and LWRP DOS rules, the Code of Ethics and the Freedom of Information Law (See FOIL index attached). The Village has concealed records as to require LWRP tasks not performed and does not give access to records with respect to adequate “public outreach” and “community consensus.” In fact, Mr. Dean represented to the community that the Village was not going to pursue any further LWRP when C000585 was terminated. Trustee dean, as director of the LWRP said the Village was going to pursue the redevelopment privately. I believe this was done so that unlicensed and permitted environmental remediation could take place on the property of Village insiders. Once the Village realized that the LWRP was funded by Title 11 environmental monies, Village decision makers proceeded to quickly allow for environmental non–compliance on certain properties to decrease cost of development for Village “insiders.”
5. I was shocked to hear that the Village had clandestinely applied for another LWRP grant and even more surprised when it did not appear on the DOS website as do other grants contracts. I was further shocked to see that the Village broke the law and concealed the grant number from the public at its first purported LWRP public meeting. This is significant as the Village Clerk has the policy and practice of blocking the public from records if the person does not know the exact name of the records one is requesting, i.e. the grant or contract number. In fact, Patricia Seal, Village Clerk, will not provide the record because she arbitrarily and capriciously deems it “not reasonably described” (See FOIL index attached). When I further asked Trustee Lori Devlin about the status of the “new” unidentified LWRP, she
said, standing on a linguistic trick that there was “no LWRP.” At this public LWRP meeting, Ms. Devlin was concealing government business from the public by changing the definition of LWRP to mean that the existing LWRP contract/grant was not an LWRP because it was a contract to establish an LWRP. This novel and devious twist to the game that the Village Clerk and Village Attorney had been playing, further exasperates the Village residents’ participation in the New York State funded “outreach.”
6. For many years, Village employees through frauds, deceits, misrepresentations, breach of protocol, further enumerated below, have blocked my access to this LWRP evidence and records thus harming residents from benefiting from the LWRP, while favoring others in the Village as to the redevelopment/revitalization in the Village. The blocking of access to these records was to curtail his investigation in the Village’s policy to favor some over other residents and business owners under the LWRP and other codes.
7. The Village, Village Board of Trustees, Seal, Snead and Village LWRP representative are non-responsive to “work product” records and “work product” records that was not performed. The Village did not properly performed LWRP Scoping Meetings.
9. On or about September 26, 2007, the DOS was finally responsive to my request for a list of all LWRP “work product” records of DOS tasks performed and not performed. The following is a list of those deficiencies as reported by New York State Department of State:
Task 5—Project Scoping Meetings: All records re: Scoping Meetings and meeting summaries—any records that reflect “community consensus” or how the Village plans to accomplish this task. DOS produces: Agenda and Meeting Summaries.
All LWRP records showing how the Village notified or will notify Village residents regarding future or past LWRP: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: Application to become a member of the Village LWRP “Advisory Committee,” (a/k/a “Steering Committee”) and how one is chosen to be included or become a member of this committee or any other “public outreach:” DOS produced: Newspaper article.
Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: Names of members “LWRP Advisory Committee”(a/k/a Steering Committee Members and LWRP Committee Members): DOS produced: LWRP Committee Members and conference call minutes.
Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: “Public Please also note that the Village has been maintaining, for the past few months, in public forums, that it is not involved in another LWRP contract, in order to conceal their malfeasance concerning previous DOS LWRP Contract #005850.
Public Outreach—public meetings with written summaries—a summary of the public meetings
including attendees, the meeting’s purpose, issues or questions raised and appropriate responses to the issues and questions: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 7—Public Outreach: All LWRP records re: Study Area Profile—summary description of study area and summary of exiting conditions in the Northeast Quadrant of the Patchogue River or the Patchogue River: DOS responded “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: developmental pressures along Patchogue River. DOS responded “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: “moratorium” and who has gotten permission to build during this moratorium: DOS responded that “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: Village planning initiatives relevant to the coastal area and Patchogue River as well as all “previous planning studies;” DOS responded that “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: Patchogue River Maritime Action Plan and the website: DOS produced: www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning/PatchogueRiver.pdf
Task 5—Project Scoping Meeting: All LWRP records re: Project Scoping Meeting(s) and summaries, with inventory of problems completed; relevant previous planning records; and other information of the meeting summaries of agreements/understandings reached: DOS produced: Draft LWRP Scoping Meeting Minutes (2 pages).
Task 2—Review & Rank Proposals: All LWRP records re: “Contractors:” DOS produced Agreement between Contractor and Village of Patchogue (110 Pages).
All LWRP records re: “Harbor Management Plan.” DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records regarding any and all completed “Written Summary of Issues, Conflicts and Opportunities;” “Harbor Management Plan-Identification of Existing Authorities;” “Summary of the issues of local and regional importance that should be addressed in the Harbor Management Plan” and “Summary of opportunities to resolve issues or advance desired projects or uses in the harbor area;” including “necessary [cross out] proposed or potentially desirable zoning changes” “redevelopment of underused or deteriorated areas for projects that advance harbor management efforts” that currently exit: “This summary shall also include a brief description of any conflicts between existing land or water uses and existing zoning standards. Such conflicts might include: existing nonconforming water-dependent uses in areas appropriate for water-dependent uses, but zoned for non-water-dependent uses; and intertidal wetland areas, bays or other offshore or intertidal areas that are used or zoned for residential or other inappropriate uses in these areas. ”DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: Summary of existing authorities. DOS responded, “Records not reasonable described.”
Task 7—Public Outreach: All LWRP records re: LWRP component feasibility study. “The Harbor Management Plan may be completed as a separate document. DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 7—Public Outreach: The minutes of public LWRP meeting already conducted: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: LWRP Title 11 environmental monies exist.
Task 6—Steering Committee: All LWRP records re: Steering Committee: DOS replied “no records” exist.
Task 6—Steering Committee: All records re: LWRP Steering Committee’s actions taken to ensure public participation during preparation of action plan; and action taken to assist public outreach and Application to join LWRP Steering Committee: DOS replied “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: Draft Request For Proposal (RFP): DOS replied “no records exist.”
Task 2—Review and Rank Proposals: All LWRP records re: Consultation between DOS and Village to review and rank proposals received as a result of RFP: DOS produced: LWRP RFP Score Sheet (10 pages).
Task 9—Economic/Market Analyses: All LWRP records re: Community and immediate region Economic/Market Analysis with all appropriate sources—economic market analysis that provides sufficient justification to identify a range of realistic future land uses to occupy the area targeted for redevelopment: DOS records produced: Draft Redevelopment Action Plan for the Patchogue River Northeast Quadrant (33 Pages).
Task 10—Future Land Use Defined: All records re: LWRP Task 10: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: Task 11 with appropriate design standards and guidelines, local laws, and graphic or drawings; DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 12—Action Plan: All LWRP records re: Task 12: DOS produced: Draft Redevelopment Action Plan for the Patchogue River Northeast Quadrant Section 6 (33 pages).
Task 16—Measurable Results: All LWRP records re: Measurable Results. DOS responded “no records” exist.
10. The Village denied me access to LWRP records, which he was entitled to review under the LWRP contracts and LWRP Policies that would evidence “work product” not performed.
11. The Village unlawfully denied access to LWRP records and evidence in an effort to conceal that the Village had not properly performed LWRP “public outreach” and reached “community consensus” and to denied me access to the political process.
12. The Village denied LWRP records on false reasons in order to conceal LWRP noncompliance
and wrongdoings and to restrict my waterfront business opportunities in the Village under the LWRP.
13. During the Scheme period, and the years 1997 through July 2007, various the Village, employees and unidentified and concealed persons took over the LWRP process; and unlawfully misled, concealed information from the public, and improperly held LWRP Steering Committee Meetings, whose dates and time are not of public record. In violations of the LWRP grants/contracts and LWRP Policies moneys were paid to these Steering Committee Members of which there is no documentation.
14. In LWRP public notices and at LWRP public meetings, the Village’s policy and practice allowed their LWRP “agents” to defrauded those in attendance as to the purpose of the LWRP contract/grants and the meetings tasks by misrepresenting the meetings’ purpose as “public information.”
15. Furthermore, Village residents were not informed as to the New York State and federal LWRP Policies and DOS LWRP grants/contract tasks, including but not limited to Grant/Contract C#005850, which demanded that the Village gather public information, reach community consensus and have community participation in the LWRP process.
16. Furthermore, the Village and their LWRP “agents” did not allow these LWRP public-meeting minutes to reflect adverse comment and concerns by the public.
17. Furthermore, Village DOS LWRP records evidence the lack of adverse comments by the public in the various LWRP public meetings minutes, reflect improper recording of public LWRP public meeting minutes. My comments at these LWRP public meetings are not on the record. Furthermore, the Village blocked me access to LWRP records to conceal the improper transcription of these LWRP public meetings.
18. Furthermore, the LWRP Steering Committee and LWRP agents designed the meetings in such a way that public comments were only heard in LWRP Sub-committee; and LWRP Steering Committee Member and LWRP “agents” filtered, censored, summarized and reinterpreted those LWRP public meeting comments for the official DOS LWRP written records and for general public at large. In this manner, the Village, Village employees, LWRP “agents,” LWRP Steering Committee Members deceived the DOS, Village resident. In this way they sought to gain unfair advantage and conspired against residents.
19. Furthermore, the Village, employees, LWRP Steering Committee Members and LWRP “agents” use LWRP Grants/Contracts moneys, including #C0005850, for unknown Village agendas, which includes the authorizing of condominiums for “insiders” and contrary to LWRP study objectives, and moratorium for “outsiders.” The times and dates in which these events occurred have been concealed by the lack of compliance with the LWRP Policies and LWRP grants/contracts, including Grant #C005850, the Village Ethics Code and destruction of records.
Frauds and Deceits
A. Denial and Destruction of Evidence
20. Access to information and redevelopment rights are some of the most important rights of business expansion and growth. As a Village and New York State resident and I have right to know government determinations related to Village government. In an effort to document these harms and to safeguard my water dependent business along the Patchogue River, I have requested vital information from the Village that was mostly denied. In an effort to obtain these records pertinent to his business activities, I spoke at Village Board of Trustee Meetings and requesting records, information and answer of various governmental policies, practices and regulations.
21. The Village improperly transcribed Village Board of Trustee Meetings and at other times completely omitted my presentations, questions, answers, as well as the answers of the Village Mayor, Board of Trustees, Village Attorney and the public. The improperly transcribed meetings include the meeting of June 12, 2006 where they threaten to remove and arrest me, thereby violating his rights to petition the government and to exercise his Freedom of Speech.
22. After I complained to the DOS terminated the LWRP under the deception that the Village was no longer willing to pursue the process. Therefore both the DOS and the Village acknowledge that the Grant is incomplete and its results “finds” obtained by fraudulent means cannot be used in any new Governmental study or the present LWRP.
23. The LWRP is an effort to aggregate the different community interests into a shared collective and collaborative vision of the future. The Final LWRP product is intended to be used to gain further financial and political support for an “established” agreed on direction for the community. Taken in this light, the current LWRP plan fails. The community was not contacted or notified properly. The community was not educated properly, they were not included in the process and their interests were
not protected. It is a contractual fraud to claim that community outreach had been reach by placing of an ad in the local paper seeking Steering Committee members and conducting two short meetings. It is a further contractual fraud to conceal these Steering Committee meetings from the public. Most people in our community do not understand the LWRP or what it means to future development. I have been personally and financially hurt by this con.
24. Please be aware that if the New York State Department of State do not stop these practices, the future monies obtained from federal and state moneys pursuant to the LWRP will be fraudulently obtained.
The Village’s Unlawful Policing Practices “Fake Cops.”
25. Furthermore, to maintain their redevelopment objectives the Village is engaged in fraudulent policing practices to the detriment of motorist and Village residents.
Recent Village’s Admissions of Wrongdoings and the Giving Up of Firearms
26. During the LWRP process and the redevelopment of the Village’s waterfront, the Village has maintained an unlawful Office of the Village Constable. This Village agency is comprised of Code Enforcement who are unlawfully deemed to be New York State Constables when they are not. These purported officials work with the Village’s Building Department and Village Justice Court. The Village’s policy and practice is the moving force behind a scheme whereby the Village unlawfully and under the
color of law burdens unwanted businesses with the intent of pushing property ownership and redevelopment rights into the hands of a few “insiders.”
27. On June 23, 2008, Brian Egan, the new Village Attorney, admitted that the practice of carrying firearms was illegal. Attorney Egan declared that the arming of untrained and unscreened personnel violated not one, but three laws, and possibly violated the oaths of office of those who were involved. In a further admission of wrongdoing, on June 1, 2008, the Village ceased the practice Village Code Enforcement Officers, the so-called “Constables” from carrying firearms. The admission of Mr. Egan, goes to the heart of the Village’s ability to illegally maintain an unlawful and illegitimate
policing force. It has been the Village policy to maintain a policing force without
proper training.
28. The previous Chief Constables, Mr. Tomeo and Mr. Kratch, who oversaw the constables, have admitted in sworn statements to having participated in the this scheme to direct Village Constables to stop and detain motorists as they drove through Patchogue. Mayor Pontieri conceded in a public forum in accepting the Wood v Inc. Village of Patchogue, et al, Index No. 01-CV-0229 (the “Wood Case”), class action settlement case that the actions of detaining motorists was wrong and that the Village would
cease the practice. The unlawful ticketing and firearms, is merely the tip of the iceberg with regards to the Village’s unlawful policies and practices. We refer to this illegal scheme, which included other unlawful acts in the name of Village code and “public safety,” as the “Private Police Force Scheme.” We use the word “private,” because the police force was unsanctioned by New York State and this illegal entity engaged in practices and objectives that were not governmental, but which served the private interests of certain Village employees, Village officials and Trustees and private citizens. Specifically, the scheme allowed Village “insiders” to open bars and use public moneys to gain extra legal police protection to foster their interest within the guise under the color of law.
29. Furthermore, the threat of the illegal police force allowed the Village to force residents to give up their rights, which would have been protected under New York State law and the LWRP, and be faced with fines, arrest, inspection, harassment, threat assault with firearms, etc. The necessary community trust for a Village Building and Planning Department work has been compromised. A redevelopment requires some semblance of trust for the quid pro quo process to work.
It has been found in the case of Mr. Joel Furman that the Planning Department now will “lifts” and entire redevelopment project, call it its own and parlay it to a political affiliate. When Mr. Furman presented an acceptable and potentially lucrative hotel plan complete with public funding sources, the Village adopted his plan as if it were their own and proceeded without him. The Building Department then impersonating New York State Peace Officers attacked Mr. Furman’s property by writing thousands of dollars of summonses and demanding hundreds of thousands or bogus improvements to force the sale of his property to someone they favored. This unlawful redevelopment policies and practices go beyond merely pushing people off their land for the benefit of “insiders,” it allows for the wholesale stealing of entrepreneurial ideas that the LWRP is suppose to foster and protect.
30. These practices allowed the Village to obtain and estimated $7.75 million dollars in faulty penalties from residents. When this issue was brought up at the September 23, 2008 LWRP Village Meeting, Trustee Hilton acknowledged the need to return this money to the residents.
31. The Suffolk County Department of Civil Service does not recognize the merging of these duties and only recognizes the duties of Code Enforcement Officer. It is further noted that the Suffolk county director of Civil Service, Alan Schneider asserts that the final decision makers who ratified the Village “fake police” Constable Department will have to reimburse the Taxpayer an estimated 800,000.00 for the costs of this improper police force. The DOS has a responsibility to remedy the Village abuse of NYS policing power and correct the harms done to the residents that came from using the Village police power to bilk residence and force unwanted business to be burdened with the higher regulatory burden
Civil Rights Violations
32. The Village intentionally, knowingly denied me the right to speak at public Village forums at various Village of Patchogue Trustee’s Meetings, specifically, but not limited to meeting on or about June 12, 2006. The Village barred Me from speaking to and before the panel of the Village of Patchogue Trustees and the Public Record, and the public, the residents of the Village of Patchogue. I was prevented
on various occasions over the past few years from speaking out. The Village has knowingly, continuously and negligently deprived Me of his right to speak under the Federal and State Laws, Open Meeting Laws. The Village has attempted to further block the Me access to information under the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), by failing to abide by FOIL and stopped me from addressing the record in reference to various unlawful denial of FOIL request for records and other denial of records;
and they did so before the Incorporated Village of Patchogue Trustees’ panel on June 12, 2006; and at other times; thereby preventing me from addressing the public and residents of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue, as to determinations made by Village of Patchogue Officials at Village of Patchogue Trustees’ Meetings. The Village threatened to “call the Suffolk County Police” (interestingly they did not
use the Village Constables I was protesting) and to have me “arrested” and “removed” from Village Hall if I did not stop addressing the Village of Patchogue Trustees.
33. Both J. Lee Snead, former Village Attorney and Village Mayor Paul Pontieri have blocked me from speaking publicly at Village of Patchogue Trustees’ meetings and have on occasion verbally threatened me for speaking out and asking questions.
34. The Village and Village official have a policy of conspiring to conceal the substance of the LWRP from Village residents and has fraudulently made statement that there was no current LWRP when there is, in an effort to conceal this government LWRP and to have the public rely upon this fraud. this concealment was done with the intention of depriving me, business associates, Village residents of their rights.
35. On or about May and June 2008, I attended Village Trustee meetings held for the Village and spoke during the public will be heard portion of the meeting requesting from the Village that they either (1) provide him with the Village policy and practice regarding the Village’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) Application for records; (2) tell him why they have not responded to his request for records under FOIL. Trustee Hilton responded for the Village, and conveyed to Me that he had not received
his a response to his FOIL Applications because I did not provide any services for the Village.
36. From on or about 2003 to the present, the Village Trustees in an effort to hide facts pertaining to Village Board of Trustee Meetings have approved inconsistent and inaccurate transcriptions of Village Board of Trustee Meeting Minutes.
37. The DOS LWRP Policy 2, protected me from these abuses “The intent of this policy is to protect existing water-dependent commercial, industrial and recreational used and to promote their future siting in accordance with the reasonably expected demand for such uses.” It is clear from the New York State Coastal Management Program LWRP Policies, Policy 2, that my Anything Marine business should not have been threatened or prevented from expanding by the Village as it was protected by these LWRP grants/contracts. The Village was receiving LWRP moneys to protect and expand water-dependent uses:
“In general, water-dependent uses, such as marinas, should be located within urban or developed areas that contain concentration of water-dependent commercial, industrial, or recreational uses and essential support facilities.” The Village was also bound to “Ensure the new or expanding marinas: —do not displace or impair the operation of water-dependent transportation, industry, or commerce.”
AKRF—Objections to the Village’s Subcontractors
39. Also please note the attached case on published on the web site:
nycourts/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_06279.htm
40. In conclusion, the Village residents have been harmed by the failure of the Village comply with the LWRP contract(s) and the failure of the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources to ensure the compliance with the federal and state guidelines enforcing the terms of the LWRP contracts. The repetitive and continued deceptions, concealments and abuses of the LWRP considering the history of protest would lead on to believe that the Division of Coastal Resources is conspiring with the Village against Village residents to actively violate their federal, state and environmental protections.
Proposed Solutions—Overview:
41. The Village is a political subdivision of New York State. The Village, despite its claims does not have any legitimate power of its own, but rather borrows all of its authority from New York State. The Village is in all respects exercising the power of New York State. The Department of State should be aware that harms are befalling United States citizens. These abuse of power, power given to them by New York State, harms, which are exasperated by the defects LWRP.
43. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should work with the Department of Environmental Conservation to suspend the Village’s capacity to be the lead agency concerning EPA laws and SEQR compliance. The Village has used its lead agency status to allow condominiums to be build on previous known contaminated oil fields.
44. The Village has a history of prejudicing non-property classes and property classes who lease to the non-property class. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should review its policies and practices to ensure that invisible stakeholders are included in the LWRP process. These stakeholders could be fishermen, workers, tenants, who do not have property and who have been
previous left out of the process because they are not property owners.
45. The Division of Coastal Resources should provide immediate financial assistance to ensure that the Village residents get their money back with regards to the $7.7 million dollars worth of property tickets falsely conveyed by Village employees impersonating New York State Constables.
46. The Division of Coastal Resources should provide immediate financial assistance to ensure that the Village taxpayers get their money back concerning the improper salaries and expenses involving illegal Village Constables. Normally this return of revenue, which was improperly spent by Village officials, would be recoverable through a taxpayer class action lawsuit, but considering the existence of an LWRP,
the Division of Coastal Resources should provide the resources to alert the community to the harms done to them and prosecute the wrong doers.
47. The Division of Coastal Resources should petition the New York Department of State’s Division of Building and Housing to investigate the illegal activities of the Village’s licensed and unlicensed Code Enforcement Officers, who are unlawfully deemed New York State Constable by the Village Code and local laws.
48. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should petition the New York Department of State’s Division of Building and Housing to relieve the Village’s Building Department and temporarily assume its responsibilities to regulate and comply with New York State law.
49. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should petition the FBI to investigate numerous instances of extortion concerning the Village’s Building Department and the Village Constables extorting redevelopment favors from Village residents.
50. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should petition the FBI to investigate numerous instances of Village insiders escaping regulatory burdens and permit processes as was recently done in Hicksville’s Building Department.
51. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should alert the FBI regarding the Village’s rouge and unlawful policing force practices that affected Village residents, property owners, revitalization and water dependent businesses.
52. The Village and the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should alert the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office and the Dept. of Criminal Justice concerning the prosecution of those who impersonated police officers and unlawfully carried firearms against Village residents and Village property owners. Since New York State does not allow for a private action of extortion or a Hobbes act violation, the residents will need a governmental entity to prosecute to redress these harms.
53. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should do a thorough investigation to ensure the accuracy and proper transcription of Village Public Meetings to ensure the proper protections of Village residents’ civil rights and functioning of the democratic process.
54. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should investigate the impact of the Village’s redevelopment plans on minority neighborhoods (DOS moneys may have already been used to selectively redevelop minority neighborhood in an effort to make them unaffordable to minority residents).
55. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should test and clean the neighborhood of contaminants caused by the releasing of the Patchogue River spoils were released.
56. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should alert the Attorney Generals’ office to review the dredge surveys to ensure that political insiders are not receiving dredging benefits at the public’s expense.
57. The New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources should consider rewriting its operating policies and oversight procedures concerning insurance that the Title 11 funds are spent on remediation known environmental problems, such as those involved in the dredging of the Patchogue River. The present policies allow for the squandering on planning for condominium projects when there is known environmental issues that require remediation.
Thank you for your attention to the above matter. If you have any further concerns regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me in writing with your NAME and email address. Anonymous comments will not be posted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Henry R. Terry
P.O. Box 2148 • Patchogue, NY • 11772
http://www.databasejustice.wordpress.com
Like this:
Like Loading...
Comments
So is this another Acorn/WFP/Pratt type group that supports bulldozing neighborhoods if they get paid off in jobs or fake affordable housing? Just who are the players here? Subsidy accountability is one thing. Using payoffs to justify bad projects is something else entirely. Next, you’ll see Al Sharpton supporting bad projects as the “community” will benefit with jobs. Oh, he did that already. Ok, get the Bertha Lewis kissing machine going again.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2006 11:33 AM
no link?
Posted by: anony | March 10, 2006 02:02 PM
Part of the reason for moving to try to reform the process by which subsidies are doled out to development projects is to de-politicize the process. Individual communities should not have to negotiate over what should be a basic return on their tax payer investment. This grouping of organizations is about moving a subsidy accountability agenda and insuring that “development” has benefits for more than developers and their future tenants.
The polarization around these issues continues to be staggering. ACORN, the WFP, and Pratt do not advocate the bulldozing of neighborhoods and are not the source of the problem. We need to get clear on who the targets are.
We need to get out of the paradigm that seems to only present us with false choices – “bad” projects vs. jobs. We do not have to choose to play on this field. Poor and low-income communities have always been forced to make this choice – cappy jobs vs. no jobs, increased polution vs. no jobs, housing vs. jobs. Al Sharpton shouldn’t play this game but neither should anyhone else. It’s a trick bag that we will never get out of and we should know better at this point. We need to change the rules of the game and that’s what the NYS Initiative for Accountable Development is attempting to do.
Posted by: Adrianne Shropshire | March 13, 2006 01:39 PM
If you are willing to come out from behind your anonymity, please e-mail me so we can set up a conversation and discuss which neighborhoods you think we (the Pratt Center for Community Development) support bulldozing:
** Markham Gardens, a 360-unit public housing neighborhood on Staten Island where we were the only citywide group that supported the tenants in their efforts to prevent demolition and displacement?
** West Harlem/Manhattanville, where we have been providing several years of technical assistance to the community board in their efforts to develop a community plan and now negotiate with Columbia in order to prevent the demolition of the existing neighborhood and instead offer a future which integrates any new building into the existing community?
** The South Bronx/Bronx River, where we have worked with environmental justice groups for a decade to reclaim the neighborhood from being an environmental wasteland into an increasingly-recognized model for sustainable development?
** Sunset Park, where we are assisting UPROSE in their efforts to create a waterfront greenway that enables working class residents inland to connect to the water, while preserving the industrial businesses and jobs (rather than just a path that connects Bay Ridge to Brooklyn Heights, or a plan that imagines the demise of the manufacturing area)?
** I dont think it could be Brooklyn Atlantic Yards, since we have not taken a position.
** So I suppose you must mean Greenpoint-Williamsburg, where we supported a broad coalition of grassroots groups who did their best to negotiate with the City, and came to an agreement that they thought was reasonable & the best they could win in the real world, which not only includes significant new affordable housing & parks, but also substantially restricts allowable building heights in 80%+ of the area of the rezoning, all in exchange for allowing taller buildings on the waterfront, which almost everyone agreed was going to be developed as residential.
On the other hand, if you feel a bit guilty about derisively opposing things that working-class New Yorkers want and need, like affordable housing and good jobs, in the name of preserving the quality-of-life in your own neighborhood, or would rather just not have to wrestle with the challenging questions of how we balance creating equity and opportunity while preserving and strengthening livable neighborhoods as New York City grows by over 1.5 million new immigrants in the decades to come, I understand if you prefer to remain anonymous.
Brad Lander
Pratt Center for Community Development
Posted by: Brad Lander | March 15, 2006 06:26 AM
Of course those groups (Acorn, WFP and Pratt) are not the only groups that are making this a problem, but they are the most visible. And of course, the policies they promote do result in community bulldozing and destabilization. Don’t try to ignore or deny what they are doing. Some of the bloggers here are apologists for this stuff.
If you want to get out of the two-choice paradign, then stop enabling it. When you put jobs and fake affordable housing on the table, it creates legitimacy for the bad development.
As before, who are the players in this initiative? No one seems to know.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 15, 2006 06:40 AM
The New York State Initiative for Development Accountability is guided by a group of organizations across the state including New York City Jobs with Justice, Metro Justice in Rochester, Coalition for Economic Justice in Buffalo, Long Island Jobs with Justice, the Long Island Labor-Religion Coalition and Long Island Progressive Coalition on Long Island, Consumers Union and Mount Vernon United Tenants in Westchester, Concerned Citizens for the Environment, Hunger Action Network of NYS, Fiscal Policy Institute, Good Jobs New York, the Working Families Party, UNITE HERE!, New York State Ironworkers District Council, SEIU 32BJ, Mason Tenders District Council PAC, and UFCW Local 1500.
We are also working with the NYS AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club.
Sorry it took a couple days to get this list up.
Michael Rabinowitz
NY Jobs with Justice
Posted by: Michael Rabinowitz | March 15, 2006 11:06 AM
Gotcha nice blog here
Posted by: Samantha | March 26, 2006 09:10 PM
Check out Assembly bill 6904.
Posted by: Mark | March 31, 2006 10:45 AM