Master Plan, rezones, Condo Law 339-y tax breaks: Part III Condominium Law 339-y

[gorja]

Is this a case of more broken promises?

Fudoli's response

[gorja]

What is Simme's job anyway? The issues that arose from the previous post, were they not code enforcement issues? Water being discharged from one property to another?

And then this -


Definitely not smart growth. If the Republicans do get a majority on the board. maybe an efficient code enforcement officer will be appointed.

[4248]

He's a vary diverse person/PLAYER - over the years he has shown his business talents in many ways:

Such side jobs as:
Failed bar operator - closed due to code violations.
Used sporting goods stored - closed.
Repair work at the Old BOCCE Building - building condemned.
Food sales at Town events.
Numerous other endeavors and questionable partners !

The newest seems to be the most aggressive
and many see as a in your face
-obvious conflict of interest.

He is now involved in new home sales.

Lets see
- help approve new builds
- over see inspections of new builds
sell new builds = Shady Deals

Just another status quo old school Player who believes he's untouchable.

__________________________________________________ _______________________

Yes, he's a great guy, good to his family, loves Lancaster and does it for the community - we know all that !

[Lee Chowaniec]

http://www.speakupwny.com/article_2792.shtml

Park Lane Apartment developer and residents reach accord (July 2006)

“We will protect you,” said Town Supervisor Robert Giza.

[4248]

This exchange shows how our Past Town Hall players(and current Councilmen) always leaned toward the developers needs - instead of the real concerns of tax payers:

“That’s what this is all about,” declared (Lan Dem Town Supervisor) Bob Giza. “We want to satisfy you and we don’t want to stop the development.”

“Is it possible to get something written down that would cover this,” asked Trezecki?

“Is this doable?” (Lan Dem Town Supervisor)Giza asked the applicant. I believe they acquiesced by a nod because no response was audible to this individual. Notice how instead of imposing this as a condition to protect tax paying home owners - the Supervisor - being aware of future development needs - asked the developer !


“We’ll be here to watch you and protect you,…” said (Lan Dem Town Supervisor)Giza. Another no teeth empty promise ! Who's he watching and who was he protecting?


(Lan Dem Town Attorney/Real-estate Investor) "Sherwood interjected that an environmental review had to take place before any such agreements could come to fruition. During the SEQR process impacts are addressed, such as wetlands, traffic, pollution, et al" - This statement alone should have warned all the concerned tax paying home owners - what Sherwood was saying is, "Nothing promised here is set as a condition or restriction - it has to be addressed and stated during the SEQR to be valid"

All the rest was just to placate residents and in the end state, "A Public hearing was held - Project approved"

The Town Clerk handles Meeting minutes - most of these exchanges rarely ever show up "word for word" in the permanent public record - wonder why ?

[gorja]

http://www.speakupwny.com/article_2792.shtml

Park Lane Apartment developer and residents reach accord (July 2006)

“We will protect you,” said Town Supervisor Robert Giza.

Thanks for posting that Lee. It looks like they ended up with just what they did not want - a berm.