Without even something as simple as a business plan or a building permit, the Town has already bulldozed a notable section of the 61 acre drainage basin on Route 45, cutting down trees and paving it over. However, neither the Board nor Town Supervisor Christopher St. Lawrence has been able to provide any hard evidence that the wooded site is in fact blighted and worthy of being classified as an urban renewal zone. But by declaring it one, the Town can easily move ahead on development and construction without going through typical bureaucratic processes.

But has St. Lawrence and the Ramapo Board played fast and loose with the legal definition of blighted to skirt State law?

New York’s Constitution (Article XVIII, Section 3) uses the precedent established by Yonkers v. Morris to define blight as follows:

* Factors to be considered in determining if area is “blighted” and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation include such diverse matters as irregularity of the plots, inadequacy of the streets, diversity of land ownership making assemblage of property difficult, incompatibility of existing mixture of residential and industrial property, overcrowding, incidence of crime, lack of sanitation, drain areas makes on municipal services, fire hazards, traffic congestion and pollution.
* For an area to be termed “blighted” and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation, degree of deterioration or precise percentage of obsolescence or mathematical measurement of other factors do not have to be arrived at with precision, since combination and effects of such things are highly variable.

Further, the New York Development Corporation Act defines a “substandard or insanitary area” as:

[I]nterchangeable with a slum, blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating area, or an area which has a blighting influence on the surrounding area, whether residential, non-residential, commercial, industrial, vacant or land in highways, waterways, railway and subway tracks and yards, bridge and tunnel approaches and entrances, or other similar facilities, over which air rights and easements or other rights of user necessary for the use and development of such air rights, to be developed as air rights sites for the elimination of the blighting influence, or any combination thereof and may include land, buildings or improvements, or air rights and concomitant easements or other rights of user necessary for the use and development of such air rights not in themselves substandard or insanitary.

I think an interested party stands a good chance of challenging this development and stopping its progress in court. After all, wouldn’t the Town of Ramapo have to prove that the area has the potential to degrade the quality of nearby property or is itself in the process of deterioration? And what proof would they present?

Aerial photographs of the site show the property to be a healthy, attractive wooded area with a stream running through it. Only the area that was bulldozed and paved over by the Town of Ramapo seems to mar it. However, the Town claims the site is polluted and filled with trash, such as abandoned cars. But those that have visited the area, including Preserve Ramapo‘s Michael Castelluccio have found the site to be “pristine” and devoid of trash. The Town has even admitted that the levels of mercury, DDT, and arsenic on the site are not highly toxic.

By insisting this wooded area is blighted and by designating the site an urban renewal zone, the town allows the Ramapo Local Development Corporation, a quasi-governmental agency chaired by St. Lawrence, to forego numerous protocols typically used in the development and construction stages. It also assists the corporation in seeking state and federal grants, including real property tax abatements. After the stadium is built, it would be owned by St. Lawrence’s corporation, which would lease the stadium to tenants.

Even after it’s built, Ramapo residents would continue to be taxed diffusely for this new stadium, picking up the slack for the tax abatements that the Ramapo Development Corporation will enjoy. While the developers could have 10 years of real property tax abatements through New York’s Empire Zone program, Ramapo residents will be footing the bill for the additional police, public works, and sewage resources this stadium will demand. In addition, the rest of taxpayers in Rockland can expect to pay for the the Development Corporation’s share of county taxes into the next decade. In short, residents of other towns will end up paying for a project that they didn’t approve. And that’s taxation without representation.

Further, it has been pointed out by local newspapers, bloggers, and activists that the surrounding roads, especially the two-lane Route 45, will be inadequate in handling the traffic to the area, possibly causing back-ups and gridlock that would extend outside of Ramapo and into Clarkstown and beyond. The Orangetown newspaper Our Town said in a recent editorial that:

The downside of Ramapo’s headlong rush to get into the sports business is the traffic impact and the investment in road improvements necessary to support a minor league baseball team and stadium. That could be spread around a much larger number of people who have no say in the matter whatsoever. All towns that could be affected should have an opportunity to review and comment during the planning process.

I couldn’t agree more. I’m calling on the Rockland County Executive’s office to take the lead in this matter, considering that this stadium could have a potential negative impact throughout all five towns.

The Town of Ramapo is playing the entire County as suckers and taxpayers need an advocate. It is the County Executive’s duty to use the bully pulpit of his office to review land use, public works, and taxation issues that can have a dire consequences on the welfare of the County. We need Scott Vanderoef to lead the County a public forum, or if need be, a suit filed by the on behalf of Rockland’s residents to stop the Town of Ramapo from moving forward with this subterfuge.

Verizon’s FIOS service has not offered MSNBC in much of the NY/NJ Metro area because of a deal it’s parent company, NBC struck with Cablevision several years ago. The contract blocked the news channel from appearing on services that compete with Cablevision’s Optimum service.

Verizon had filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission in order to get the network on FIOS. It is not clear whether intervention by the government led to this development. Nor is it clear that this is a result of an agreement betweeen Cablevision, FIOS, and NBC’s new corporate parent, Comcast, which is yet another cable television provider.

Progressive stalwarts such as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz can now be watched on channels 103 and 1545 (in high definition). The service on FIOS begins February 2.

Mt. Kisco opthamologist Nan Hayworth later today is expected to unveil a new website and disclose that’s she’s already got more than $300,000 for her congressional run.

Hayworth is said to be well known in the area due to her years working as doctor, and her husband Scott Hayworth is an OB/GYN and CEO of the Mt. Kisco Medical Group.

She has reportedly been talking with Sue Kelly, the former longtime 19th rep, who Hall unseated Kelly in 2006 with 51 percent of the vote.

This candidacy makes for some interesting scenarios.
I’d first like to report that Hayworth is targeting independent and Democratic voters in her initial emails. Yesterday, I got three emails from her, each one sent to a different address. Other progressive voters that like in the 19th (I do not) said that they have already been contacted by her campaign. This early move tells me that Hayworth will be targeting socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republicans, like many of those that you would find in northern Westchester County.

Her campaign Web site is not up yet, but a blog called Hayworth for Congress has already been launched. In it, Hayworth (the woman on the left in the photograph) attacks John Hall mostly for his support of the stimulus bill, although many of the assumptions she makes about the lack of job creation on her Web site are misguided or erroneous. There is no mention of social issues such as gay marriage or abortion that one would typically find from a staunch conservative candidate. So I think it’s safe to say that Hayworth will run to the left of Ball in the primary.

And Hayworth has a lot of cash behind her campaign already. She already has $168,247 in contributions and has loaned herself $150,000. This war chest of nearly $320,000 is substantial.

What little I know about Scott and Nan Hayworth is that they have many connections to money and power in Westchester. They’re on boards and donors lists of many civic and benevolent organizations and are the quintessential Westchester power couple. They’ll have no problems finding friends willing to write them $2,000 checks and names like Pataki, Giuliani, and Bloomberg endorsing Nan.

The good news is that this will be devastating for Greg Ball, as he’ll have to much of his cash on a tough primary battle. As Ball’s primary opponent, Hayworth will also expose his Achilles Heel if not pierce it. The bad news is that I worry that Hayworth can win the primary and she’d be a much stronger candidate against John Hall come November as she doesn’t have the baggage that Ball does. While Hayworth won’t inspire any loyalty from teabaggers as Ball does, she is a moderate and can appeal to independents and moderates.