CONNECT

Beacon Citizen Network (BCN): a place for neighbors to get the word out, be heard and stay informed in all matters concerning Beacon, NY.

SPONSORS

Photobucket

Hiddenbrooke 1.5 milliom dollars out of the general fund, come on!

I can’t believe in this fiscal environment, the Mayor and the Council of the City of Beacon can continue to squander taxpayer money on Hiddenbrooke. The city still does not have a clear title on the property. Without a clear title, the city never received the grant money awarded them, so they took the 1.5 million dollars from the general fund to purchase the property. If this is not illegal, I think it was unethical. When I was on City Council in 2004-2005, I voted NO on the Hiddenbrooke deal because the city wanted to change the zoning to prevent the builder from developing the land. I thought this was wrong and I knew there was not a clear title, because one of my constituents owned the chapel and two acres, via deed vendee, which is still the case today and a costly burden on the taxpayers. This year’s budge is $1 million in the red and there is $1 million in unpaid taxes.

At Monday night’s council meeting (Aug. 17)) they approved $50,000 for more legal fees to continue the fight for Hiddenbrooke, and they have already spent $100,000. I think $150,000 would be better spent on recreation, repaving Fishkill Avenue, police dog equipment, police cars, DPW equipment, water department equipment and senior citizen activities. They would rather throw the money to lawyers and the courts. I am very disappointed in the way city hall is throwing money around!


Michael D Fasano, former councilman city of Beacon

Views: 283

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Charlene Vesuvius, for one brief minute on this the twenty sixth day of August, I stand in awe of your writting. I've never heard the property or the city's mission described in such eloquent language. Thank you on behalf of Beacon.
Steve
I think Charlene is spot on most of the time, she just needs to soften the tone. And if her tone rankles, that must mean something freudian right?

Back to the law suit. The person who owns the bit of land, told many people (Republicans) that he owned it and was excited about taking the city for all its worth, if city bought it. When someone told me this, I thought it was an exaggeration or wrong. The reason? At that time, I thought long time residents LOVED Beacon, unfortunately, many actually want to get what they can and care very little for the city itself. Hence, the many lawsuits. To all the people who knew about this before the fact, shame on you. Shame on you now for trying to use it for your own purposes, when you knew this would happened YEARS before it happened. I am sorry I did not take it seriously and did nothing myself, but many of you knew.

Jason, I think you should take her advise, she is smart and so is Philomena.
It seems like this web site is one sided and just a forum for the mayor to voice his opinion. I do not think the people of Beacon know about many of the dealings that take place. The other people posting opinions like Charlene Vesuvius , Is this person fictitious?? Is it possible this is the mayor? Or is this the woman who had family that lived on the property?? I feel this all seems too personal and not about the issues at hand. NO ONE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A CLEAR TITLE. If charlene feels so strong about the issues why dosent she come forward and say who she really is ? Just as the other citizens have? STOP HIDING BEHIND THIS FICTITIOUS CHARACTER ,and say who you are. Some of the other people posting have valid points about how money should be spent, and how the people of Beacon were not given the facts. I feel that we all need to stick to the facts .

Charlene Vesuvius said:
You are right Justin, i am not the voice of Beacon, just one still small voice.

I don't always agree with Mayor Gold, but on this one I think he is spot on. This property is really the only open space purchase made by our City, at least during my time. University Settlement wasn't actually a purchase, so I don't count it as such even though its usage is something to watch. So everybody who believes in the open space concept should get behind the city and its efforts here. Because of the uniqueness of the purchase and the purpose of the purchase, Hiddenbrooke represents something very special for Beacon's residents now and will for many generations into the future. And not just because Hiddenbrooke's undeveloped beauty should be preserved, but also because its history should as well -- it once was the estate of the great champion of women's rights, Margaret Sanger, and not only represents Beacon's natural heritage but also this community's love for social justice. Because of that this property is a powerful symbol of the underlying strength of this community and should be treated with respect. From what I read, the City, for all the right reasons, bought this property, specifically to preserve it in perpetuity from development and from private residency. The purchase was a gift to us, our children, and our grandchildren. I would be devastatingly disappointed if the City didn't take every recourse available to secure the property and the intent of the purchase for all of us. I understand that one individual believes he stepped into some lucky good stuff in the form of a prime parcel of land. But the City seems to have bought this same parcel with actual cash and sees it as integral to its vision of the stewardship of Hiddenbrooke on behalf of the people of Beacon, and should take every measure on our behalf to make this purchase come to life in its totality, for all our sakes.



Justin Riccobono said:
Love the Retoric Charlene. I do not think you are the voice of Beacon so I am not that worried. Hope to see you around town.

Charlene Vesuvius said:
Justin, isn't the proposal you think the City should have accepted two years ago and doesn't seem bad to you -- take 80 acres as open space, etc. -- from the same supposed convicted felon you just said the City should never have been doing business with? I'm not on your campaign staff, but I strongly counsel you to not stay involved in this conversation if you want to have any chance as a candidate.

Justin Riccobono said:
Charlene,

As far as the Archdiocese goes, they were looking to sell this property for 15 years, not until this developer purchased the property the city got involved. To answer your question regarding the Archdiocese, they do not represent the people of Beacon the City does, So I don't think that is really relevant. Supposedly the developer was going to develop 20 acres and then give the remaining 80 Acres to the City for Open Space. Not to mention fix the flooding issues the property has. Furthermore, Open Space would have been realized in the deal, Tax revenue would have been made for the city and a flooding issue for the residents in the area would of been fixed. That deal does not seem that bad to me. Open Space is great for Beacon and is great for the Hudson Valley. I believe in Conservation and am an Environmentalist. Many people in town know where I stand with Open Space. I do not think that the 100 Acres needs to be developed, but I believe we need to work together in order to put and end to this matter.

Charlene Vesuvius said:
Justin, it was the Archdiocese of New York that sold the property to this man. You should ask them why they would do any type of business with him. We all would appreciate your relaying their answer.

And for goodness sake. you are running for council on the Republican ticket. Why politicize a matter that is clearly destined for the courts to decide and is being pursued on behalf of all the citizens of Beacon, not just one real estate broker? Don't you support open space initiatives in Beacon? Your web site says you do. Are you in favor of the City trying to sell the property back to some developer?

Justin Riccobono said:
Charlene, I have heard much on this matter also. I believe the seller of Hiddenbrook was some type of Convicted Felon and what I cannot understand is why the city would do any type of business with this man.

I agree with Michael and the City needs to spend this money on something more substantial such as repaving Fishkill Ave. All of our Car dealerships are on Fishkill Ave and bring in a large amount of sales tax revenue to Beacon. Unfortunatly most people are not looking to test drive a vehicle on Fishkill ave and I am sure the dealers are not to happy with the amount of business they probably loose. I understand the city is waiting on some funds from the state, funds that may or may not be there in the next couple of years. I do not think we can afford to wait 5 years to find out NYS who is currently 1.5 billion dollars in the red will not have any money to assist us with Fishkill Ave repairs.

Charlene Vesuvius said:
Thanks, yours and Michael's further explanation is helpful. I must say if the City knew that they weren't buying the whole parcel, then they knew they weren't going to get the grants to buy the property in the first place. That's a pretty serious accusation of malfeasance. And why would the seller be siding with the city? Something is off and its sounds like adjudication is the answer, as it is unfortunately when there is a problem that can't be resolved.
Beth,

You think this is getting personal and yet you write….. I do not think the people of Beacon know about many of the dealings that take place. Please tell me because I don’t know either. If you know something is going on that is illegal or unethical, please call me on my cell phone: 845-249-5571.

I am sorry I am writing so much. I think the public should know what I consider to be the facts. And I can’t sit idly by when people state information that I believe to be incorrect and it involves the city government.

BTW…Charlene Vesuvius is a far better writer than I can ever be and we often disagree, so please don’t start a new round of rumors.

Steve Gold,
mayor@cityofbeacon.org
Beth Henderson said:
It seems like this web site is one sided and just a forum for the mayor to voice his opinion. I do not think the people of Beacon know about many of the dealings that take place. The other people posting opinions like Charlene Vesuvius , Is this person fictitious?? Is it possible this is the mayor? Or is this the woman who had family that lived on the property?? I feel this all seems too personal and not about the issues at hand. NO ONE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A CLEAR TITLE. If charlene feels so strong about the issues why dosent she come forward and say who she really is ? Just as the other citizens have? STOP HIDING BEHIND THIS FICTITIOUS CHARACTER ,and say who you are. Some of the other people posting have valid points about how money should be spent, and how the people of Beacon were not given the facts. I feel that we all need to stick to the facts .


wow, you must not have read many of the discussions on this website if you think it is one-sided, and also - it's a place for ANYONE to voice their opinion (mind you, in a civil manner), not just the mayor. I, for one, am very glad the mayor posts here - I don't know if other small cities and towns have this type of access to their mayor, but I think this is great. How you are deciding what is fact and what is opinion, I'm not sure - that is, unless you have been involved in the legal wrangling that has gone on with Hiddenbrooke, and you've been here since to all started. I applaud the mayor for taking the high road on these postings, when just about every other (not all, but most) politician or would-be politician has not.

And I for one and really tired about the "fictitious person" nonsense about CV - it is old, tired, and really getting boring and repetitious. CV has opinions, and she posts them - so do lots of people - like them or loathe them, her opinions exist.

BTW, I am for the city in this issue about Hiddenbrooke - I voted for it a couple years ago, and I support their efforts in this legal battle.
I am really Henry.

I think this website/forum is one of the most positive things to happen around here in quite a while. Thank you Kelly for establishing it and to all who regularly post and those who choose not to.

I think Steve's participation speaks volumes about his promise to reach out to the citizens of Beacon and to be accesable.

PS...why doesn't this thing have spell check.

Philomena said:
Beth Henderson said:
It seems like this web site is one sided and just a forum for the mayor to voice his opinion. I do not think the people of Beacon know about many of the dealings that take place. The other people posting opinions like Charlene Vesuvius , Is this person fictitious?? Is it possible this is the mayor? Or is this the woman who had family that lived on the property?? I feel this all seems too personal and not about the issues at hand. NO ONE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A CLEAR TITLE. If charlene feels so strong about the issues why dosent she come forward and say who she really is ? Just as the other citizens have? STOP HIDING BEHIND THIS FICTITIOUS CHARACTER ,and say who you are. Some of the other people posting have valid points about how money should be spent, and how the people of Beacon were not given the facts. I feel that we all need to stick to the facts .


wow, you must not have read many of the discussions on this website if you think it is one-sided, and also - it's a place for ANYONE to voice their opinion (mind you, in a civil manner), not just the mayor. I, for one, am very glad the mayor posts here - I don't know if other small cities and towns have this type of access to their mayor, but I think this is great. How you are deciding what is fact and what is opinion, I'm not sure - that is, unless you have been involved in the legal wrangling that has gone on with Hiddenbrooke, and you've been here since to all started. I applaud the mayor for taking the high road on these postings, when just about every other (not all, but most) politician or would-be politician has not.

And I for one and really tired about the "fictitious person" nonsense about CV - it is old, tired, and really getting boring and repetitious. CV has opinions, and she posts them - so do lots of people - like them or loathe them, her opinions exist.

BTW, I am for the city in this issue about Hiddenbrooke - I voted for it a couple years ago, and I support their efforts in this legal battle.
The other parts of the website are informative but this forum, is not an open discussion when you knock down opposing opinions. You said " its a place for ANYONE to voice their opinion" and I did, but yet you criticize and slander people in some of these posts. Why dont people stick to the facts and not hearsay? BTW , I have read through the other comments and I see where people are not discussing the topic , instead they are saying terrible things about others.So this is not a positive forum. Not something I want to be a part of. So shame on you!!

Philomena said:
Beth Henderson said:
It seems like this web site is one sided and just a forum for the mayor to voice his opinion. I do not think the people of Beacon know about many of the dealings that take place. The other people posting opinions like Charlene Vesuvius , Is this person fictitious?? Is it possible this is the mayor? Or is this the woman who had family that lived on the property?? I feel this all seems too personal and not about the issues at hand. NO ONE BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A CLEAR TITLE. If charlene feels so strong about the issues why dosent she come forward and say who she really is ? Just as the other citizens have? STOP HIDING BEHIND THIS FICTITIOUS CHARACTER ,and say who you are. Some of the other people posting have valid points about how money should be spent, and how the people of Beacon were not given the facts. I feel that we all need to stick to the facts .


wow, you must not have read many of the discussions on this website if you think it is one-sided, and also - it's a place for ANYONE to voice their opinion (mind you, in a civil manner), not just the mayor. I, for one, am very glad the mayor posts here - I don't know if other small cities and towns have this type of access to their mayor, but I think this is great. How you are deciding what is fact and what is opinion, I'm not sure - that is, unless you have been involved in the legal wrangling that has gone on with Hiddenbrooke, and you've been here since to all started. I applaud the mayor for taking the high road on these postings, when just about every other (not all, but most) politician or would-be politician has not.

And I for one and really tired about the "fictitious person" nonsense about CV - it is old, tired, and really getting boring and repetitious. CV has opinions, and she posts them - so do lots of people - like them or loathe them, her opinions exist.

BTW, I am for the city in this issue about Hiddenbrooke - I voted for it a couple years ago, and I support their efforts in this legal battle.
I keep seeing references to a decision being made in this case by the New York Supreme Court. It was brought up again in a letter in the Beacon Free Press. I did some research online and the case was heard by the Dutchess Civil Supreme Court. The status is listed as

Relief Sought: Misc. Special Proceedings

Decided: 30-JUN=09
CLOSED MOTION
Before Justice: PAGONES

DECISION: Oral

There was also a "Preliminary Conference Held" on 7-27-09, and another appearance date for 2-09-2010.

This information doesn't shed much light on the situation but it does show that it is moving through the court. The question still unanswered is whether a judgment was made in favor of Jonathan Miller on June 30 as some have claimed.
Excuse me ?? where have I slandered people in my posts ? or are you just grouping "us all" together ?? Shame on you for assumptions and generalizations !

Beth Henderson said:
The other parts of the website are informative but this forum, is not an open discussion when you knock down opposing opinions. You said " its a place for ANYONE to voice their opinion" and I did, but yet you criticize and slander people in some of these posts. Why dont people stick to the facts and not hearsay? BTW , I have read through the other comments and I see where people are not discussing the topic , instead they are saying terrible things about others.So this is not a positive forum. Not something I want to be a part of. So shame on you!!

Charlene, you said it so well.

These attacks/timing is all for the elections or to help someone's legal case. Which is what I have been trying to say for a couple days. How about people screaming about facts but not mentioning what facts they are questioning.

Charlene Vesuvius said:
Andy, I saw the free press letter which mirrors the posting of this discussion also. It indeed looks like this case is chugging along at some kind of pace in the courts, so I wonder why would one side in a legal action would choose to undertake a mini public relations campaign to make their case to the public. Most lawyers advise no comment. And why now? And why without a full blown argument backed up by actual facts rather than opinions. Are there some decisions now in need of influencing that haven't been mentioned?
Shame on me! The only one that told the last Mayor and council it was a bad deal, but I was new and they new better!
Is this a pun? "I was new and they new better?"

Michael Fasano said:
Shame on me! The only one that told the last Mayor and council it was a bad deal, but I was new and they new better!

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Kelly Kingman.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service