tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post2039542387049780519..comments2024-03-28T07:54:47.319-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: At Last Night's Legal Committee MeetingCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-51408350503085696752013-03-28T12:21:12.205-04:002013-03-28T12:21:12.205-04:00I salute the Valley Alliance's efforts, and I ...I salute the Valley Alliance's efforts, and I hope that they will follow up on the many ignored questions raised by their letter.<br /><br />One of Roberts' favorite tricks is to defend against only one part of a complaint, and to thereby dismiss the entire complaint. It appears that the other legal types on the council are learning the same trick from her, and it is essentially bad faith.<br /><br />In 2011, a state SEQR Analyst at the DEC told me that Roberts was completely in the wrong for ignoring newly discovered information about the ecology of South Bay that was submitted to the council.<br /><br />Stupidly, I had personally reported that the American eel was not yet known in the bay (dumb mistake, I know, I know ...), and on the basis of the one error all of the rare and state-listed plants and animals which were reported were dismissed or ignored by Roberts (and by that year's asleep-at-the-wheel council). <br /><br />In 2012 the state DOS officially listed the majority of the new discoveries in a "Rating Form" for its newly-designated significant habitat. <br /><br />Unfortunately I never was able to afford a lawyer to challenge the city on a clear violation that was confirmed by the SEQR Analyst.<br /><br />Today I am in the same situation, although the city may have to pay for all legal fees if a court finds Roberts in violation of the state's Open Government Law (Regarding Resolution No. 2, from last September 18th).<br /><br />For example, a typical sales pitch for the council president was repeated in the Register Star story, which is that "we’ve been waiting a long time to get this land." <br /><br />That is a lie, and it is a much worse lie than the other plentiful dishonesties such as the new repetition of the phrase "approximately 9 acres." (Wouldn't people agree that 9.968 acres is really 10 acres?) <br /><br />It is a fact that nearly a third of the land described in February's resolution was new to the deal. For the public anyway, the added acreage was unknown and unknowable until AFTER the council had passed the Resolution! (That in itself was unlawful.) For a public that Mr. Moore routinely keeps in the dark, his "long time" will be all of 2 months come April 11th.<br /><br />It would have been more accurate to say that Mr. Moore had personally waited for this land; whereas it is the height of dishonesty for him to imply that the public had known anything about the extra acreage.<br /><br />It's also curious that the added acreage which was the former site of a Standard Oil "distribution depot" (a fact missed by the title search: oops!) was not included as a candidate site in last September's non-public BOA Program application. That was a grant request to study contaminants which was devised by a secret committee on which both Moore and Roberts serve in total disregard of the state's recommendations that the DOS program include the public.<br /><br />THESE PEOPLE ARE BAD!<br /><br />All that a citizen can do to guard against such secretive and dishonest officials is to study the available record. <br /><br />At the 9/18/12 council meeting where Roberts finally retracted her 2-year old claim that a contaminants survey had already been conducted "at the approximately 7 acres," the council ordered a "preliminary environmental review" (which is not yet conducted) and a title search (which is conspicuously incomplete). <br /><br />But if you go to the public record to see exactly which lands the council had voted upon last September, the resolution's "attached map" is missing from the Minutes. The City Clerk was as dumbfounded as I was that they were missing, but could add no more.<br /><br />The council had better think long and hard about this matter. It will be difficult, expensive and totally embarrassing to have to take apart a deal which the council had precipitously finalized thanks to Mr. Moore's tiredness and impatience.<br /><br />I also wonder if Holcim would have a problem undoing a completed land transfer? Wouldn't they seek damages in the event?<br /><br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.com