|
The following are the past posts from my home page from most recent down to the oldest:
JUNE 15, 2011
Hi Folks. This Supervisor Sherwood ordeal is getting very bad, all to the detriment of our Town. This
guy is so focused on his hatred of the law firm a majority of the Board
hired, not only is he hoping we lose our tax fighting efforts, HE NOW WANTS TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY FRIEND OF HIS TO REVIEW THE ATTORNEY BILLS!!! I wonder if he would have the audacity to suggest that if it was HIS money instead of ours??
He wants so
desperately to be able to say “they failed” on our school the tax fight
that he had another attorney friend of his submit emails to the State
tax department that actually HURT Stony Point taxpayers by pointing out
certain weaknesses in our argument. If I didn’t know any better I would think he works for Haverstraw. It’s a real shame he doesn’t fight for us as avidly as Howard Phillips fights for his taxpayers.
`
If he would
concentrate just a PORTION of his efforts and anger on helping Stony
Point residents rather than his own personal and political agenda he
wouldn’t be wasting so much taxpayer dollars and missing so many
critical dates for services our residents deserve, and for which we HAVE
PAID.
Here is another example, and I have about 25 more I will be releasing. Last year Mr. Sherwood wasted over $13,000 of our tax money to pay an attorney to do legal work that WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE FOR US FOR FREE UNDER THE RETAINER WITH THE CURRENT FIRM because he ADMITTEDLY refuses to talk to the Town’s lawyers.
The list goes on and
on – from his campaign funds by supporters of the mulch facility and
Haverstraw desalinization plant, to cancelling the recycling contract
with a Town business and giving it to an out of Town political ally. I have supporting documentation for everything I will be releasing, and I am not afraid to get involved. I
am NOT running against Mr. Sherwood, so this is NOT a political issue
for me – it is an attempt to get rid of this walking disaster BEFORE he
completely destroys out Town. Thanks again. STEVE
PS – If anyone doesn’t want to receive my emails please drop me a quick note and I will take you off the list. There is a lot of information that the public needs to know, so it may get busy soon! STEVE
JUNE 14, 2011
Did anyone attend the Town Board meeting tonight? If so, WILL SOMEONE OUT THERE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUPERVISOR SHERWOOD??
I went to Albany
today with two attorneys for the Town, and a witness that the Town
subpoenaed, in our continuing effort to adjust the unfair school tax
burden Stony Point residents pay. We
went to the tax complaint hearing for the Town (the same one Supervisor
Sherwood ignored last year) and made our case (again) for Stony Point
taxpayers. Mr. Sherwood did not
attend, refused to send any Town representatives other than the three of
us that the Town Board sent, and then at tonight’s Town Board meeting
was nothing less than supercilious in his obvious hope that STONY POINT
FAILS!!! There is certainly no guarantee that we will succeed, BUT IF WE DON’T FIGHT FOR OURSELVES WHO WILL?? Stony Point has been overpaying its school tax share for YEARS and Mr. Sherwood couldn’t care less – OR DOESN’T GET IT. His
statements at the meeting tonight made it crystal clear that he wants
Stony Point taxpayers to lose for no other purpose than to be able to
say “I told you so”. Forget losing the next election, this guy should be IMPEACHED. He
couldn’t care less about our taxpayers – since his first day in office
he has focused on NOTHING other than replacing the attorneys the Town
Board hired. He dropped the ball on the Town Pool, the budget, and for the second year in a row SCHOOL TAX RELIEF. The Board is completely dysfunctional because of his arrogance and lack of real concern for our taxpayers.
Thus my questions: WILL SOMEONE OUT THERE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUPERVISOR SHERWOOD?? Thanks. STEVE
MAY 20, 2011
Hello folks – thanks for all the supportive emails and phone calls about the “letter” that was sent out by Dick Eggers.
As most of you already know, none of the “facts” he stated are actually true. As
I expose the depth and complexity of the corruption and incompetence
right here in our small Town, I certainly expect to be challenged now
and again. I am surprised, however, that Mr. Eggers chose to fabricate outright lies about me rather than address the issues I have raised. Also, I am curious who funded the $3,000 Eggers Town wide mailing.
Because Mr. Eggers
elected to lie rather than address issues, and did so in such a
malicious manner designed specifically to harm me and my family, I
decided it was necessary to take appropriate, albeit rather aggressive
action in order to protect my family. Thus,
earlier this afternoon Mr. Eggers was served with a Supreme Court
Summons and Complaint requiring him to answer to a Judge and jury for
his false and malicious actions. A copy of that lawsuit can be viewed here.
TO the desk of Dick Eggers: CH-v-Eggers.pdf
In sum, and contrary to the “Eggers letter”, the lawsuit shows that:
1. The
initial “Haverstraw settlement proposal” in the Mirant case was not
“botched”, rather it was blocked because it was designed to shift about
$3 million in excess yearly costs onto Stony Point residents from Haverstraw for a period of about 8 years. The Haverstraw politicians hate me for that, but they know the truth;
2. I have taken two companies public and served as CFO and CEO during those periods. Neither has ever gone bankrupt, and both continue to be publicly traded;
3. I did not lose millions of family money in a risky real estate investment. My
family (as well as about 400 other North Rockland families) was a
victim of theft in the Westgate Capital Ponzi scheme, and it was
certainly not “millions”;
4. I served on
the school board from July 1, 2007 through February 8, 2011, and was a
member during the adoption of the school tax levy for the school years
2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. During
that period, the school tax levy went DOWN from $140,700,000 in the
2007-2008 school tax year adopted prior to my tenure, to $127,500,000,
the final year of my term. The shift of taxes from Haverstraw to Stony Point hurt Stony Point taxpayers badly, but that is a Town issue.
5. On the fourth of July in 2007 the Rockland Journal News alleged that I allowed fireworks to be set off on or near my property. An investigation into the media claims resulted in no violation of law subsequently alleged.
6. In
the summer of 2010, an “anonymous tipster” contacted the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservations (“DEC”) and the Town of Stony
Point and alleged that I singlehandedly moved an entire 300 foot long,
30 foot wide, three foot deep section of stream in my backyard, along
with two dozen 30 and 40 foot tall trees. The DEC inspected my property and stream and found no such violations. The complaint was unfounded, no criminal or other citations were issued, and no further action was taken.
So, despite his
efforts (and those sneaky little cowardly politicians behind and funding
him), his $3,000 letter will not slow me down!! I have plenty more
information that they DO NOT WANT ME TO DISCLOSE to the public, but it’s
coming out anyway – the difference is, it is truthful, not fabricated!
One final note – Mr. Eggers claims I am running for the Town Board. Again, inaccurate. I have talked to many people in Town, but have not decided whether I should try to run for office. It takes a lot of time and work, and there are certainly no guarantees. I
don’t know what candidates the Town Political Committees are
considering, nor whether they would have any interest in me
participating or not. I do believe our Town needs serious help, and the current Supervisor is hurting us badly. If
a majority of a nominating committee were to consider me a viable
candidate for Supervisor, Town Board, or County Legislator, I will have
those discussions with them at that time. For
now, I was born and raised in Stony Point – I pay way too much in taxes
for far too little in services; I don’t believe the Town offers enough
healthy recreational activities for my children; and despite being a
police officer myself, I believe municipal and school salaries and
benefits must be restructured for the future. I can take the heat, but will not tolerate the lies.
Thanks for sticking with me for OUR TOWN. STEVE
MAY 11, 2011
"SHERWOOD'S SECRETS - CHAPTER TWO"
“Bill and Mirant – an alarming couple”
THE ISSUE: At a February, 2011 Town Board meeting, Supervisor
Sherwood voted against authorizing our Town representatives to try to
address the unfair School tax burden Stony Point residents face as
relating to Haverstraw taxpayers. At
that time he held a letter in the air claiming that his attorney friend
from Albany didn’t think Stony Point would prevail, so it wasn’t worth
the effort. That attorney’s opinion differed from other experts the Town had previously retained.
THE CONCERN: In
reviewing an original electronic version of that letter relied upon by
Mr. Sherwood to vote against our taxpayers, the “background properties”
of that letter indicate that it was created by the ATTORNEYS FOR MIRANT, HAVERSTRAW’S LARGEST TAXPAYER!
DISCUSSION: In
May of last year, Supervisor Sherwood received a letter from the State
inviting him to Albany on June 15, 2010, to voice his complaints and
arguments for a better school tax rate for Stony Point taxpayers. He
HID that letter from the tax assessor and the Town Board and did not go
to the meeting – we (Stony Point residents) got a 15% school tax
increase as a direct result.
This
year, Mr. Sherwood couldn’t hide the fact that we again had an
opportunity to obtain a better tax rate, so he OPENLY FOUGHT AGAINST THE
EFFORT. At the February, 2011 Town Board meeting he voted against trying to get a better school tax rate for Stony Point. He was outvoted 3 to 2.
A
few days later in an article in the Rockland County Times about that
vote, Mr. Sherwood claimed his “no” vote was because he received a
letter from his Albany attorney (Mr. Paul Goldman) saying the Town would
probably not get a better rate so there was no sense trying. No one could understand why our own Supervisor was fighting so hard against tax relief. However,
the “Goldman” letter upon which he relied sheds some light on this
issue, and is at the very least, suspicious and disturbing.
In considering the following information, bear in mind that Haverstraw’s largest taxpayer is Mirant (Bowline).
I
obtained an electronic version of the “Goldman” letter (which is why
Mr. Sherwood is objecting so strongly to my “FOIL” requests). Electronic
mail (email) and attached documents typically have identifying
information hidden within the background of the documents which is
computer generated. This information is known as “electronic properties”, and usually no one pays much attention to it.
In
the “Goldman” letter relied upon by Mr. Sherwood, the information found
in the “electronic properties” hidden in the background is alarming. It
indicates that the letter was apparently created by someone named
“Margaret” at the law firm of White and Case in New York City. The
contact information for the author of the letter is an email of
“ascavone@”, also from the law firm of White and Case, with a White and
Case telephone number. The
letter was last saved by “PGoldman”, the attorney who provided the
letter to Supervisor Sherwood, and which letter Mr. Sherwood relied upon
to vote against Stony Point taxpayers.
The telephone number listed is that of a partner at the White and Case law firm, Arthur Scavone. The email address beginning with “ascavone” is that of the same Arthur Scavone. The problem - White and Case is Mirant’s law firm, and represented Mirant against Stony Point in a number of matters!!
When
Mirant filed bankruptcy, which devastated Stony Point’s finances and
resulted in the demolition of the Lovett plant, its lead attorney was
the firm of White and Case. When Mirant exited bankruptcy its lead attorney in its $2.35 billion financing was the firm of White and Case. Mr.
Arthur Scavone is “Global Head of the Energy, Infrastructure and
Project Finance Group” at White and Case out of the New York office.
As we all know, Mirant is Haverstraw’s largest taxpayer. If
Stony Point were to obtain a more favorable tax rate for school tax
purposes, Mirant would likely pay a much bigger part of the North
Rockland School taxes. Thus, Mirant would be the first in line hoping Stony Point did NOTHING to better its tax rate. As I said, ALARMING.
The
following is a snapshot of the front page of that
“Goldman/Sherwood/White & Case” letter, with the “electronic
properties” revealed:
This
letter, with the electronic properties shown, was relied upon by
Supervisor Sherwood in voting AGAINST Stony Point taxpayers. Although
entitled “Sherwood Ltr”, the electronic properties indicate it was
originated at Mirant’s attorney’s offices by the head of its energy and
finance group.
Mr. Sherwood refused to go to Albany last year to fight for Stony Point taxpayers. This year he couldn’t hide the fact that we had the opportunity to fight for lower taxes, so he voted against it. He relied on a letter apparently drafted by Mirant’s attorney’s to do so. He
was out-voted, and as a result we submitted substantial documents on
behalf of Stony Point, and now it looks like OUR SCHOOL TAXES ARE GOING
DOWN!! I don’t know what his
motives are, nor do I have any idea why he thinks our residents will not
see right through his unbelievable actions. I
do know the facts, and that if we and the rest of our Town Board don’t
watch him very closely, we will be paying for Haverstraw’s schools,
police services, and garbage collection next. Thanks for listening and PLEASE forward this to your friends and families.
STEVE
MAY 7, 2011
"SHERWOOD'S SECRETS - CHAPTER ONE"
THE ISSUE: I
am trying to find out why Supervisor Sherwood is fighting efforts to
reduce the unfair School tax burden Stony Point residents face (see my
April 26 post below). In that regard I submitted seven (7) Freedom of Information (“FOIL”) requests to the Town.
THE CONCERN: In response, Mr. Sherwood posted one (1) of my information requests on the Town’s Facebook page. I am not sure what his point was in posting just one, or why he put it on the Town’s Facebook
page. I am also concerned, of course, that as soon as I volunteered to
work on this School tax issue (as I have been doing for about 8 years
now) he started attacking me around town, on line, and in the media.
DISCUSSION:
I am not worried about his attacks. As many of you know, I am fully
capable of fighting back at whatever level is required, and this guy has
provided plenty of ammunition to do so with his actions against our
Town over the past year or so.
As for his FOIL posting, in the interests of full disclosure, here are copies of all seven of the FOIL requests I have submitted so far:
FOIL_1_Attorneys.pdf
FOIL_2_Expenses.pdf
FOIL_3_A_Phones.pdf
FOIL_4_A_FOIL.pdf
FOIL_5_RI_Firm.pdf
FOIL_6_A_St_Lawrence.pdf
FOIL_7_Emails.pdf
If anyone has any questions about the purpose of each of these requests, please feel free to drop me an email. Thanks. STEVE
STONY POINT SCHOOL TAXES
4/26/11: Early Success Despite Behind the Scenes Resistance
As promised, our School Tax fight is on, with some good results so far, but disturbing resistance from an unexpected source:
1. Census
estimates indicate that in the combined Haverstraw/Stony Point School
District, Stony Point has 24.9% of the students, 12.9% of the commercial
tax parcels, 30% of the residential housing units, 34.8% of the
combined annual income, 29.6% of the combined population, and 27% of the
total land area.
2. For the 2010/2011
school year, Stony Point residents paid 46% of the residential School
tax bill ($37.6 million), which is at least $4.5 million more than Stony
Point residents should have paid.
THE PROGRESS:
3. In
February of this year, a majority of the Town Board voted to engage in a
coordinated, aggressive effort to try to correct the unfair
apportionment of School taxes between Stony Point and Haverstraw. Supervisor Sherwood voted “NO”.
4. The
Town Board majority formed a “tax team”, which included a group of
attorneys, tax experts, volunteers, and the tax assessor, in order to
execute the tax savings plan at a maximum cost to the Town of $5,000.
5. The
first step involved putting together two separate documents for
submission to the State Office of Real Property Service (ORPS) designed
to request tax rate adjustments to correct this inequity, those being:
a. a
“Pre-Decisional Collaboration” petition (“PDC”) which detailed
specifically the unjust School tax burden Stony Point residents pay, and
requested a tax rate for Stony Point which would assist in correcting
that situation; and
b. a
“Special Segment Rate” petition (“SSR”) requesting Haverstraw be issued
a special tax rate to further address the unfair School tax burden
Stony Point faces.
6. Both
documents were submitted on the due date of March 1 by the tax team on
behalf of Town taxpayers as directed by a majority of the Town Board.
7. The
PDC was submitted in order to begin negotiations between the tax team
and the State to get the desired tax rate the team determined Stony
Point deserved in order to correct the roughly $4.5 million in annual
overpayments Stony Point residents make.
8. As
a result of the tax team’s PDC submission and supporting statistics,
and the tax assessor’s perseverance, the State recently provided an
estimated tax rate that they expect to issue to Stony Point. That rate is better than last year, and should lower the $4.5 million we are overpaying annually by about $2 million.
9. This is a good first step and we will gladly take every victory we can get. This
success came, however, in the face of substantial opposition and
interference by our own Town Supervisor, making the process much more
difficult than and possibly not as successful as it could have been.
THE UNEXPLAINABLE RESISTANCE
10. Over
the past 8 weeks, since the tax team submitted the PDC as directed by
the Board, the team did not receive any calls, emails, comments or
questions from the State.
a. As
a result, and with an April 30 deadline for the tax rate approaching, a
“Freedom of Information” (FOIL) request was submitted to the State to
try to find out why they were not responding or negotiating.
11. A reply to that FOIL request was received showing the State had been responding regularly, but not to the tax team. Instead, the Supervisor used an Albany attorney to keep all of the negotiations and information from the tax team, despite a majority of the Town Board ordering otherwise.
a. Thankfully,
the State advised that they utilized the team’s PDC and statistics to
increase the rate for Stony Point resulting in the higher, more
desirable rate we are going to receive.
12. Supervisor
Sherwood completely ignored the majority vote of the Town Board and the
extensive submissions that were filed on March 1 on behalf of Stony
Point taxpayers.
a. Rather
than join in the fight for lower School taxes for our Town, he made the
same mistake this year as he did last – he took the position that there
was nothing we could do about the unfair percentage of School taxes
Stony Point residents pay – but this time, he actually INTERFERED with
the ongoing efforts to address the problem.
13. Despite the Supervisor’s questionable actions we successfully obtained over $2 million in residential tax relief so far.
a. As
a result of his actions, however, we will never know if we could have
done even better with additional negotiating and input from the team to
further reduce the remaining $2.5 million in overpayments we are still
facing.
THE NEXT STEP
The tax team is not finished. The
second document submitted on March 1, 2011 (“Special Segment Rate”)
will be considered by the State in the next few months. The tax team has
an extraordinary amount of data supporting that request, so assuming
the team doesn’t get sandbagged by the Supervisor and his Albany
compatriot again there will hopefully be more success soon.
NOTE 1: Three documents publicly available prove the above facts:
A. The 3 to 2 Town Board resolution approving the tax team submission of the March 1 documents (available from the Town Clerk);
B. The March 1 PDC petition that the tax team filed (available from the Town Clerk); and
C. The
documents and communications between the State, and the Supervisor and
his Albany attorney over the last 8 weeks which were withheld from the
tax team and a majority of the Town Board (available from the State
ORPS).
NOTE 2: I serve as a volunteer attorney and tax consultant on the tax team. This
statement is from me, not on behalf of the tax team, but the public
documents needed to confirm these facts are available to everyone. As
a taxpayer, I would personally like to thank Geoff Finn, Lou Vicari,
Jim White, Jack O’Shaughnessy, Dennis Lynch, Don Feerick and Mary
Marzolla for their extraordinary efforts in fighting for our taxpayers.
STEVE
APRIL 18, 2011
OUR PARK LAND AND THE BUDGET
THE ISSUE: In a recent newspaper article Supervisor Sherwood claimed that he included $250,000 in “income” in our current Town budget based on his unannounced plan to sell a portion of Town park land to the County Sheriff’s Patrol. He then told at least one resident that the sale was not a sale, but “just an inter-municipal transfer of land”. He finished by saying in that same article that despite the Board’s vote to reject the proposed sale, and the overwhelming objections by residents to the plan, he still hopes to complete the transaction.
THE CONCERN: The Town Board did NOT include any such $250,000 in the budget, nor would that have been at all proper. Giving park land to the County in exchange for $250,000 is NOT some magical “inter-municipal transfer”, it is the SALE of our park land. And finally, a majority of residents were opposed, and a majority of Town Board members voted NO – that should be the end of it despite the Supervisor’s desires – this is NOT Ramapo!!
DISCUSSION: These topics were brought to light recently by Town resident and SPACE President George Potanovic Jr. in a letter to Stony Point News. The following is George’s letter:
“Dear Stony Point News.
According to this JN article, Supervisor Sherwood and the town board had already included the $250,000 expected from the sale of this town owned property to help balance the books in for this year's budget and to keep / hire additional cops. I never remember this sale being discussed as a line item in the budget or maybe I missed it? Even so, why is that line item being included in the budget even before holding a public hearing on the proposal so the public can learn about the proposal and express their views for or against.
At the April 12 Tuesday Town Board meeting, the supervisor claimed that the sale of this property was what he termed an "inter-municipal" transfer and not an actual sale of town property at all. I questioned this term and how it is different from a sale of town property, which would be subject to a public hearing and perhaps subject to a permissive referendum. When asked to further explain the details of the proposed purchase by the County Sheriff's Dept, the supervisor said that the Sheriff's Dept. was using confiscated drug money to purchase the property and that the town was not aware of all the details and did not have any proposal from the county in hand. The town was holding a public hearing and did not have all the facts available for the public.
In addition, the agenda for the town board meeting on Tuesday, did not identify the property on the agenda. The town board and town clerk claimed that the public hearing was legally noticed in the Rockland County Times, even though they claimed it was not required for them to post the notice. There was NO notice of the public hearing posted on the town website. All this and the town board members were claiming that they were being completely "transparent" about the process. I disagree.
SPACE will follow up with the NYS Department of State (NYSDOS) Legal Department next week to see if their lawyers would describe this transaction as a "inter-municipal transfer" whatever that is, or an outright sale.
George Potanovic, Jr.
President, SPACE
************************************************
STONY POINT — The Town Board has canceled further negotiations with the Rockland County Sheriff's Office about the potential sale of a portion of the town-owned former Letchworth Village property.
The Sheriff's Office had been exploring the idea of buying the property near the Veterans Memorial Park ball fields to house the headquarters of its Mounted Patrol Unit.
The Sheriff's Office hasn't given Stony Point any official proposals, but the Stony Point Town Board this week held a public hearing, seeking residents' opinions on the potential sale.
Because of overwhelming opposition from residents who spoke during the hearing, the board decided not to continue negotiations with the Sheriff's Office, Town Board member Geoffrey Finn said.”
As you will note in the above letter, George said that he did not remember any talk of selling Town park property to balance the budget or save police positions. Now we learn that the reason George, other residents, and in fact most of the Town Board members did not “remember” such a discussion is because it never happened. I have confirmed with finance officials in the Town that no such revenue or planned sale was anywhere in our budget. Doing so would have been improper anyway. Selling park land to fill a onetime budget gap would be, as one learned friend of mine put it, like “selling the house to pay the heating bill”.
The Supervisor’s attempt to call the proposed sale of park land an “inter-municipal transfer” didn’t fly with the residents he was speaking with at the time, and certainly won’t work to avoid the procedures required to be followed when the proposed sale of park land is involved. A sale is a sale, and trying to call it by some other name will not change that fact. Perhaps our Supervisor has been reading too many fairy tales before dealing with our taxpaying residents, for wasn’t it Alice who said, “the question is … whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6.
We have enough problems in our Town as it is without having to worry about the same old political agendas of a few egotistical elected officials. I think it is time to get past worrying about reelection, and start paying attention to the issues hurting our residents everyday (TAXES, for example!).
COMING SOON: 1) A suspicious Mirant letter used by Supervisor Sherwood to try to avoid helping our taxpayers lower school taxes; and 2) Supervisor Sherwood’s crazy FOIL requests seeking non-existent “dirt” on me for questioning his actions as Supervisor (hmmm, is someone upset he is being watched???).
APRIL 13, 2011
SCHOOL TAXES
THE ISSUE: In the past two years, residential School Taxes in North Rockland increased $7.2 million!! Worse yet, of that amount, Stony Point taxpayers paid $6.3 million, which is 87% of that increase. Haverstraw taxpayers paid less than $1 million.
THE CONCERN: Despite this inequity Supervisor Sherwood voted AGAINST taking any action to try to reduce Stony Point’s share of the School taxes – luckily three of our Board members overruled him and action is being taken.
DISCUSSION: There are two problems Stony Point residents face regarding the issue of school taxes. The first, of course is the school budget. The second, and just as important, is how much of that total budget the residents of Stony Point pay.
The amount of the school budget has long been a problem and one that the Town Board does not have direct control over. However, our Town Board DOES play an important role in what PORTION of that budget Stony Point taxpayers must pay.
For many years (since the consolidation of the Haverstraw and Stony Point School Districts in 1957), Stony Point has paid far in excess of its fair share of school taxes.
Last year was an exceptionally bad year for Stony Pointers, and here is why.
In early 2010, Haverstraw and Stony Point submitted numbers to the State which were used to determine how much of the total School Tax bill the residents of each town were going to have to pay in September of 2010.
On May 17, 2010, the State set proposed rates (called tentative equalization rate) for Haverstraw and Stony Point to use in determining that split.
A few days after the State set these rates, the State sent Stony Point a letter inviting the Town to appear in Albany on June 15, 2010 to discuss the proposed tax rates, and request a different rate if desired. Our Supervisor never advised the Town Board or our assessor about that letter or about the hearing date, and he never went to Albany.
Around June 2, 2010, after Haverstraw sent its data to the Sta te, Haverstraw changed all its tax numbers by LOWERING the market value of every single family home in Haverstraw by 17%. This happened BEFORE our Supervisor was supposed to appear in Albany and argue for better tax rates for Stony point!!
On July 20, 2010, the State adopted its initial tax rates for Haverstraw and Stony Point with no changes to Haverstraw’s rate, despite all residential property being lowered by 17% - primarily because Supervisor Sherwood never bothered to go to Albany as invited.
In September, Stony Point residents received our School Tax bills – which totaled over $3 million dollars MORE than we should have paid. That is like having our Town taxes go up 22%!!!
This year, the same thing is happening. Thankfully, however, by a 3 to 2 vote (Supervisor Sherwood voted “NO”), the Town Board instructed counsel and a tax expert to fight for our residents in Albany. On March 1, 2011, two substantial sets of documents were submitted to the State describing all of the above facts and fighting for a better school tax rate for Stony Point residents. Hopefully we will have some success.
COMING SOON: Some thoughts (and evidence) as to why the Supervisor is seemingly fighting for Haverstraw taxpayers rather than ours.
|
