Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Lancaster-Depew Baseball League gets green light

  1. #31
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    Excuse me - I didn't bail out and you definitely didn't help in anyway. Some people start - as you did - throwing crad when they run out of "Factual rebuttal" - some people would rather take a small inconsequential "Appointment" then actually stand up against the status quo. Enjoy yourself. I choose not to sell out.

    But lets try to stay on point -

    This Baseball Facility is going on "Taxpayer/Town Owned Land" -

    This facility is being subsidized with tax dollars -

    This facility is being built for one specific "Special Interest Group" - those are facts.

    There has been many "positive" comments I have posted - yes far out weighed by my "Contempt" for the historical actions of a handful of LAN Dem Committee Controllers and those who feel "Entitled" to patronage jobs and nepotism appointments. I will continue until it changes.

    I will express my views - that at times are drawn from opinions and conversations with/from other taxpayers.
    I am surprised a group of elected people are allowing a sports business venture to be ran on town property while putting the town on the hook for a loan. Is what will be offered in that building offered any where else in WNY? yes or no?

    I don't really care either way except for the fact I can see the cost being dropped on the property owners. I also don't like "government" subsidizing something that will compete for "sport entertainment" dollars from legit businesses.

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Quote Originally Posted by takethepowerback View Post
    If I were a Lancaster resident, I'd be considering a Article 78 filing against the town. According to NYS OPRHP's Alienation Handbook, this use of the park is requires an "alienation" which means the state must pass a bill approving the change in use. It's an alientation requiring state approval for a host of reasons...from the Handbook

    1. "It is also worth noting that grant contracts with municipalities involving the development of recreational facilities with State or Federal funds require the municipality to obtain alienation legislation."

    2. Size of the change in use is irrelevant.

    3. This is determined by the courts.... "The lease of municipal park or recreational facilities, especially one to a private profit-making concern, even though the resource may continue to be used for public park and recreational purposes."

    4. The Court of appeals has ruled that buildings are appropriate in a park only if they are consistent with park purposes AND if they “facilitate free public means of pleasure, recreation, and amusement and thus provide for the welfare of the community.”

    It's not that an alienation might not be granted, its the arrogance displayed by Lancaster officials in ignoring the law that's dismaying. Complete and continual disregard for state law, environmental assessments, and good old fashion cost benefit is why taxes continues to climb and as the town tries to build its way out, it really is only making the problems worse.
    This is quite interesting. Have you sent this coorespondence to the Lancaster Town Board - better yet to the Town Attorney who is in charge in satisfying all legal agreements? Oh wait, you are not a Lancaster resident and the town attorney is not in on the contract agreements. It is outside counsel Swiatek who is handling the legal work.

    How does this also impact the Town of Lancaster donating land at Keysa Park for the skatepark project? I am not being facetious here, but dead serious. Perhaps some Lancaster resident will follow up on this.

  3. #33
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by takethepowerback:

    1. "It is also worth noting that grant contracts with municipalities involving the development of recreational facilities with State or Federal funds require the municipality to obtain alienation legislation."
    Actually, it was the park land that received grant money not the Baseball recreational facility


    2. Size of the change in use is irrelevant.
    Agree

    3. This is determined by the courts.... "The lease of municipal park or recreational facilities, especially one to a private profit-making concern, even though the resource may continue to be used for public park and recreational purposes."
    The LDBL is a private not-for-profit.

    4. The Court of appeals has ruled that buildings are appropriate in a park only if they are consistent with park purposes AND if they “facilitate free public means of pleasure, recreation, and amusement and thus provide for the welfare of the community.”
    This building is definitely not used for FREE public use but it is consistent with park purposes (recreation). The town is not putting the police/court facility in the park.

    Also, according to the handbook this has been found by the courts to be an alienation-

    "Failure to keep a public park or recreational facility equally open to the public. A public park or recreational facility must be open to the public on an equitable basis. Where availability of public facilities such as ball fields or marina berths is limited, a potential alienation issue can be avoided by providing everyone the same opportunity for access, such as assignment on a “first-come, first-served” basis, or by using a lottery system."

    Is the LDBL facility providing everyone the same opportunity for access, such as assignment on a “first-come, first-served” basis?

    http://nysparks.com/publications/doc...onHandbook.pdf

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #34
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Here is a partial sample of legislation from that handbook - http://nysparks.com/publications/doc...onHandbook.pdf pg 76


    Appendix 13 – Sample Legislation: Lease for Recreational Purposes
    LAWS OF NEW YORK, 2009
    CHAPTER 67
    AN ACT to authorize the city of Watertown, county of Jefferson, to lease certain parklands.
    Became a law June 9, 2009, with the approval of the Governor. Passed on Home Rule request pursuant to Article IX, section 2(b) (2) of the Constitution by a majority vote, three-fifths being present.

    The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

    Section 1. Subject to the provisions of this act but notwithstanding chapter 308 of the laws of 1998, the city of Watertown, county of Jefferson, is hereby authorized, acting by and through its city council, to lease to the Watertown Family YMCA, Inc. for a term not to exceed twenty-five years, the municipally owned parkland more particularly described in section three of this act, consisting of a public indoor sports facility with indoor athletic fields, exercise/weight training areas, concession facilities and related facilities.

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #35
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Response from the town supervisor-
    There is no surrendering of any park land for this facility. The town is the owner of the building. This is no different than a park shelter or the pavilion that already exists in the park. The baseball group are not going to own this facility. Just like the Ponytails do not own the building they built in Walden pond park years ago. There is a ton of misinformation out there regarding this building which leads people.to these conclusions. But if they look at the facts and follow what's being done as opposed to speculation as to what's being done they would know this. The public will have access to use this facility and rent it from the rec department and sign up for usage just like baseball diamonds and soccer fields. So please pass this information on to those who are saying this and if they have any questions please have them call me I will explain. Thanks for the inquiry.

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Response from the town supervisor-
    There is no surrendering of any park land for this facility. The town is the owner of the building. This is no different than a park shelter or the pavilion that already exists in the park. The baseball group are not going to own this facility. Just like the Ponytails do not own the building they built in Walden pond park years ago. There is a ton of misinformation out there regarding this building which leads people.to these conclusions. But if they look at the facts and follow what's being done as opposed to speculation as to what's being done they would know this. The public will have access to use this facility and rent it from the rec department and sign up for usage just like baseball diamonds and soccer fields. So please pass this information on to those who are saying this and if they have any questions please have them call me I will explain. Thanks for the inquiry.
    Gorja, thank you for sharing this information. Very insightful and provides clarity regarding the project. My only question is, did the recreation department feel a facility like this was a necessity? What about the private businesses, like the Epic Center, that do not receive any government subsidies. This project will hurt their business considerably. I think a project like this sets a bad precedent going forward. It is only a matter of time that the soccer or lacrosse clubs will request a facility like this. I just do not believe this project is fiscally responsible at a time when conservative principles should be in practice.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by 4248 View Post
    Excuse me - I didn't bail out and you definitely didn't help in anyway. Some people start - as you did - throwing crad when they run out of "Factual rebuttal" - some people would rather take a small inconsequential "Appointment" then actually stand up against the status quo. Enjoy yourself. I choose not to sell out.

    But lets try to stay on point -

    This Baseball Facility is going on "Taxpayer/Town Owned Land" -

    This facility is being subsidized with tax dollars -

    This facility is being built for one specific "Special Interest Group" - those are facts.

    There has been many "positive" comments I have posted - yes far out weighed by my "Contempt" for the historical actions of a handful of LAN Dem Committee Controllers and those who feel "Entitled" to patronage jobs and nepotism appointments. I will continue until it changes.

    I will express my views - that at times are drawn from opinions and conversations with/from other taxpayers.
    4248 you did bail out and listen to what your saying, positive comments some time, but few and far in between. I have supported you when you were in and defended your actions at times, but let's get real. fight for the taxpayers, not just angry a person that feeds off the boo- woo's to spread " the sky is falling " thought process.

  8. #38
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by dmckay716 View Post
    Gorja, thank you for sharing this information. Very insightful and provides clarity regarding the project. My only question is, did the recreation department feel a facility like this was a necessity? What about the private businesses, like the Epic Center, that do not receive any government subsidies. This project will hurt their business considerably. I think a project like this sets a bad precedent going forward. It is only a matter of time that the soccer or lacrosse clubs will request a facility like this. I just do not believe this project is fiscally responsible at a time when conservative principles should be in practice.
    There's one area in which I feel is vague and that is access to the baseball facility to the general public. In Lee's original post in this thread, he had a response from the LDBL directors Paul Gumbo and Dave Mansell, " There is language in the agreement that dedicates primary use of the facility to LDBL teams – without membership and associated fees." What about a resident's children who aren't in any league? Can they use the batting cages, etc or even a bunch of us 60 year olds, can we?

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Response from the town supervisor-
    There is no surrendering of any park land for this facility. The town is the owner of the building. This is no different than a park shelter or the pavilion that already exists in the park. The baseball group are not going to own this facility. Just like the Ponytails do not own the building they built in Walden pond park years ago. There is a ton of misinformation out there regarding this building which leads people.to these conclusions. But if they look at the facts and follow what's being done as opposed to speculation as to what's being done they would know this. The public will have access to use this facility and rent it from the rec department and sign up for usage just like baseball diamonds and soccer fields. So please pass this information on to those who are saying this and if they have any questions please have them call me I will explain. Thanks for the inquiry.
    Thanks for the research effort and the due diligence in calling the town supervisor. This project will never set right with some people for whatever reason. It will always be, "Yeh but, yeh but, yeh but."

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by hawkeye View Post
    4248 you did bail out and listen to what your saying, positive comments some time, but few and far in between. I have supported you when you were in and defended your actions at times, but let's get real. fight for the taxpayers, not just angry a person that feeds off the boo- woo's to spread " the sky is falling " thought process.
    hawkeye question for you, why do you think 4248 bailed out because he served on the board, put his family in political/personal jeopardy and was abused by the media.

    I give 4248 credit for sticking his neck out to serve the town through a "grassroots" style of governing. Thanks 4248.

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    hawkeye question for you, why do you think 4248 bailed out because he served on the board, put his family in political/personal jeopardy and was abused by the media.

    I give 4248 credit for sticking his neck out to serve the town through a "grassroots" style of governing. Thanks 4248.
    Shorty - I would give 4248 credit for standing up for everyone if he didn't walk out on the process ( he was VOTED in by the same people) you and our republican people voted in at the time, I was at many of the Town Board meetings at the time and 4248 was a voice for change and I have been a long time Dem. and I watch the Dems. screw with him and he voice his thoughts at times very well but DID NOT listen to the supporters on controlling his actions or remarks as advised. 4248 to my knowledge has not attended ONE Meeting since he walked out YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! I can'nt and will not buy into his boo-hoo's and BS on the webb site that is all about his problems with the DEMS. But will support the REP. next elections. I also blamed the former Rep. chair for his actions over the time or lack of actions to get the REP. in to office Ralph Moore is a slim and one reason why the Dems. have control of the Town. The part that gets me is there was two good Rep. candidates for supervisor in the pass Fred H. and Bill Cansdale and the Republican Chairman screwed them and the taxpayers of Lancaster and thats is why I'm writing this note. This is the last time I will answer any thing else on this topic. So 4248 forget about IT. and focus on the changing of the Town Board and not you pitty pottie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by hawkeye View Post
    Shorty - I would give 4248 credit for standing up for everyone if he didn't walk out on the process ( he was VOTED in by the same people) you and our republican people voted in at the time, I was at many of the Town Board meetings at the time and 4248 was a voice for change and I have been a long time Dem. and I watch the Dems. screw with him and he voice his thoughts at times very well but DID NOT listen to the supporters on controlling his actions or remarks as advised. 4248 to my knowledge has not attended ONE Meeting since he walked out YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! I can'nt and will not buy into his boo-hoo's and BS on the webb site that is all about his problems with the DEMS. But will support the REP. next elections. I also blamed the former Rep. chair for his actions over the time or lack of actions to get the REP. in to office Ralph Moore is a slim and one reason why the Dems. have control of the Town. The part that gets me is there was two good Rep. candidates for supervisor in the pass Fred H. and Bill Cansdale and the Republican Chairman screwed them and the taxpayers of Lancaster and thats is why I'm writing this note. This is the last time I will answer any thing else on this topic. So 4248 forget about IT. and focus on the changing of the Town Board and not you pitty pottie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Great point Hawkeye regarding Bill Cansdale and his candidacy for supervisor. Hard to believe he almost won considering the disaster that was/is the republican party at that time. Its a shame that they had such poor leadership and vision, led by the useless Ralph Mohr. Cansdale was a much better and polished candidate then Supervisor Fudoli, but as we have seen successful candidates must have organized manpower and key timing. I also hope that Mr. 4248 heeds your advice and stops with the democratic whining.

  13. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918
    Quote Originally Posted by dmckay716 View Post
    Great point Hawkeye regarding Bill Cansdale and his candidacy for supervisor. Hard to believe he almost won considering the disaster that was/is the republican party at that time. Its a shame that they had such poor leadership and vision, led by the useless Ralph Mohr. Cansdale was a much better and polished candidate then Supervisor Fudoli, but as we have seen successful candidates must have organized manpower and key timing. I also hope that Mr. 4248 heeds your advice and stops with the democratic whining.
    Spot on. Mr. Mohr did indeed cost Cansdale the election in 2004. He continues to be a detriment to the Republican Party by having other committee members do his meddling for him. Mr. Mohr's best interests are his agenda and best interests and when it comes to Lancaster's best interests Republican County Chair Langworthy has been misguided or chooses to be another lapdog.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Depew-Lancaster Baseball League updates Town of Lancaster
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2013, 02:27 PM
  2. Green light for a crackdown
    By ILOVEDNY in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 20th, 2009, 02:32 PM
  3. Restructuring Lancaster government (Abolishing the Villages of Lancaster & Depew)
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2008, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •