Most people do not realise that New York State LWRP’s are supposed to protect waterbased business and give the local community a voice in their own redevelopment.
The division of Coastal Resources has figured out a way to GUT these protections and provisions.
I believe most of the LWRP’s are in breach of contract and that those whose Villages were affected possibly can recover from the Dept. of State.
http://www.patchgouesredevelopment.com
Article 78 proceedings
A NYS General Municipal Law § 51 Lawsuit —>
This statute provides taxpayers with a right to file suit against public officials
who waste taxpayer monies (ref: “GMU General Municipal” Article 4, § 51 on
<<http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS>>):
Prosecution of officers for illegal acts. All officers, agents, commissioners and
other persons acting, or who have acted, for and on behalf of any county,
town, village or municipal corporation in NY state, and each and every one of
them, may be prosecuted, and an action may be maintained against them …
to prevent waste or injury to, or to restore and make good, any property,
funds or estate of such county, town, village or municipal corporation…
Waste is defined in § 51 to include officers or agents of local government (e.g.,
county, town, village or municipal corporation) who allow for any fraudulent,
illegal, unjust, or inequitable claims or expenses to be paid:
Waste or injury consists in any board, officer or agent in any county or
municipality, by collusion or otherwise, contracting, auditing, allowing or
paying, or conniving at the contracting, audit, allowance or payment of any
fraudulent, illegal, unjust or inequitable claims, demands or expenses, or any
item or part thereof against or by such county or municipality…
Section 51 authorizes a taxpayer lawsuit “when the acts complained of are
fraudulent, or a waste of public property in the sense that they represent a use
of public property or funds for entirely illegal purposes.”
The taxpayer action is based on a public official’s misconduct, such as fraud,
collusion, corruption, or bad faith [Lavin v. Klein (2004) 783 N.Y.S.2d 815].
A bond may have to be posted when such a lawsuit is filed.
Personal liability arises only in some violations of this law, i.e. “if the illegal acts
were collusive, fraudulent, or motivated by personal gain.” [Stewart v. Scheinert
N.Y., 1979] Despite the restrictions, that definition seems broad enough to cover
many cases that might arise regarding situations like wind power.
The penalties are not clearly defined in this statute, but would likely be at least
the extent of the damages proven.
——————————————————————————————
3 – A NYS General Municipal Law Article 18 Lawsuit —>
There are several sections of NY General Municipal Law Article 18 (§800-§813)
that may apply. (See <<http://tinyurl.com/2srnb4>>.)
For instance, §809 says that town officials should disclose any financial
incentives they may obtain or relationships they have, that could result in a
conflict of interest.
For the rest of this section I quote (my emphasis) from passages from
<<http://tinyurl.com/28s4h4>>, as it seems to be very pertinent:
Article 18 of the General Municipal Law contains the provisions of law which
relate to conflicts of interest of municipal officers and employees. Pursuant to
General Municipal Law, §800(3), a municipal officer or employee has an interest
in any contract with his municipality if he receives a direct or indirect financial
or material benefit as a result of that contract.
That interest is prohibited if the officer or employee, individually or as a
member of a board, has the power or duty to: (a) negotiate, prepare, authorize or
approve the contract or approve payments thereunder; (b) audit bills or claims
under the contract; or (c) appoint an officer or employee who has any such
powers or duties (General Municipal Law, §801), and none of the exceptions
contained in Article 18 are applicable (see General Municipal Law, §802).
Any contract willfully entered into in which there is a prohibited interest
is null, void and unenforceable (§804) and any officer or employee who
willfully or knowingly violates the provisions of Article 18 may be guilty
of a misdemeanor (§805).
Also note that, if an officer or employee has an interest in a contract that is not
prohibited (under the provisions of Article 18, General Municipal Law, §803)
nonetheless it is generally required that the interest be disclosed in writing
and included in the official record of the governing board’s proceedings.
Disclosure is not required under section 803 in the case of an interest in a
contract which is not prohibited under subdivision two of section 802 (General
Municipal Law, §803[2]).
A “contract”, for purposes of Article 18, is defined in General Municipal Law,
§800(2) as any “claim, account or demand against or agreement with a
municipality, express or implied.” At least one lower court, the City Court of the
City of Mount Vernon, has held that an application for a building permit and
subsequent issuance thereof constitutes a “contract” for conflict of interest
purposes (People v Pinto, 88 Misc 2d 303, 387 NYS2d 385).
If the awarding of a wind power, water extraction (or similar) project to a
developer is found to be a contract, a municipal officer or employee would have
an interest if he or she stands to gain a direct or indirect material or pecuniary
benefit from the contract even though the officer or employee is not a party to the
contract (1985 Opns St Comp No. 85-60, p 84; 24 Opns St Comp, 1968, p 561;
1981 Opns St Comp No. 81-295, p 318).
The disclosure requirements of General Municipal Law, section 809 provide,
that every application, petition or request submitted for a variance, amendment,
change of zoning, license or permit must state the name, residence and the
nature and extent of the interest of any officer or employee of the municipality, in
the person, partnership or association making such application, petition or
request, to the extent known to the applicant.
For the purpose of this section, an officer or employee is deemed to have
an interest in the applicant when he, his spouse, or their brothers,
sisters, parents, children, grandchildren, or the spouse of any of them:
(a) is the applicant, (b) is an officer, director, partner or employee of the
applicant, (c) legally or beneficially owns or controls stock of a corporate
applicant or is a member of a partnership or association applicant, or (d) is a
party to an agreement with such an applicant, expressed or implied,
whereby he may receive any payment or other benefit, whether or not
for services rendered, dependent or contingent upon the favorable
approval of such application, petition or request.
[Since this statute contemplates that the person or entity making the application
will make the required disclosures, it also may not apply to a situation where
the interest of the local government officer or employee is adverse to that of the
applicant.]
It should be noted that even when a transaction does not result in a prohibited
conflict of interest and the provisions of section 809 do not apply, the town’s
code of ethics should be reviewed to determine whether it contains any pertinent
provisions. Under General Municipal Law, §806, a town code may regulate or
prescribe conduct which is not expressly prohibited by Article 18.
Note that the courts of this State have held public officials to a high
standard of conduct and, on occasion, have negated certain actions
which, although not violating the literal provisions of Article 18 of the
General Municipal Law, violate the spirit and intent of the statute, are
inconsistent with public policy, or suggest self-interest, partiality or
economic impropriety (see, e.g., Zagoreos v Conklin, 109 AD2d 281, 491
NYS2d 358; Matter of Tuxedo Conservation v Town Board of the Town of
Tuxedo, 69 AD2d 320, 418 NYS2d 638; Conrad v Hinman, 122 Misc 2d 531,
471 NYS2d 521).
Thus, for example, in Tuxedo, supra, the court held that a board member
should have disqualified himself from voting to grant a construction permit to a
subsidiary of a client of the advertising agency of which he was an officer.
Accordingly, any town board member should abstain from discussions — and
not even be present when such discussions are held — as well as obviously not
voting on any matter which, while not violating Article 18 or the town’s code of
ethics, suggests even an appearance of self-interest, partiality or economic
impropriety.
Violations of some sections of General Municipal Law Article 18 may mean that
public officials may also be in violation of NYS Penal Law Section 195.00, Official
Misconduct and/or Penal Law Section 200, (Bribery Involving Public Servants
and related offenses).
Usually people who have steadfastly defended their villages are the ones to be bulldozed out by profit.
See below the language wars…..
We’re not anti-development, but we’re concerned about PIER development
Dear Editor:
I have noticed, however, that citizens who are concerned about development on piers are always referred to as “anti-development activists”. This term implies that these people are outside agitators who are unreasonably and fanatically against something — namely development. The truth is that the people referred to in the articles are concerned Hoboken residents, your neighbors and mine, who have a shared interest in preserving and improving the quality of life in our town.
In contrast, the developers get this great word to describe them. “Developers” implies people who support positive growth and advancement. I hope that all developers live up to the truly positive aspects of this definition. We can’t ignore, though, that they are indeed a special interest group. They are, of course, businessmen who are also motivated by profit. However, the press never refers to them one-sidedly as “the rich and powerful developers” or “anti-public space activists.”
I learned from my Dad, who is a long-time reporter, that in media language is everything. And this juxtaposition of a negative phrase, “anti-development activists,” with a positive word, “developers” spins the story unfairly and does a disservice to the thousands of residents of this community who have dedicated time and energy, learning about the proposal, attending meetings, and expressing their views. Public participation in town should be welcomed and supported. The press needs to develop language that encourages, rather than discourages this participation.
In fairness to all concerned, refer to the developers as “developers”,” but refer to ‘us’, if you need a soundbite as “concerned citizens” because that’s what we are. Thanks.
Kimberly Fox
Hoboken
http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/2007/09/williamsburg-anti-development-poster.html
Did you see the story today 11/23/08 in the Times?
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs.
In New York State, the enforceable coastal policies are those in the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) and the enforceable policies of any Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, regional coastal management programs such as the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, or other special area management plan that has been incorporated into New York State’s approved management program.
I have made a complaint to the Comptroller’s office regarding the LWRP Contract #C005850, and with regards to its impact upon the second LWRP under investigation for possible fraud. Please also note that the Village has been maintaining, for the past few months, in public forums, that it is not involved in another LWRP contract, in order to conceal their malfeasance concerning previous DOS LWRP Contract #005850 (See below).
I have been compelled to file various Article 78 Proceedings with the courts, due to the Village’s concealment and lack of compliance in giving me LWRP record and information. 06-14428, 07-23235 Despite the fact that the New York State Department of State contracts/grants granted the Village monies to have the resources to freely and openly provide information to the community.
The Village has also exasperated the concealment if information by misrepresenting Ms. Russo involvement as coordinator for the Village LWRP. This misrepresentation was done to in an effort to block community questioning regarding Village LWRP.
Although the “Patchogue Waterfront Revitalization: Village of Patchogue Notice of Public Information Meeting on the Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWPR) Plan,” attached hereto, states that I may contact Marian H. Russo, she (1) misrepresents her position in the organization, denying that she is the co-director, (2) refuses to answer my questions, instead refers me to Village Attorneys, previously,
J. Lee Snead and presently Brian Egan, (3) refuses access to LWRP records and states that this is a Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) matter, and (4) refuses access to the process, which is intended to inform me as to the redevelopment plans with regards to the Patchogue waterfront revitalization. All this is being done despite the fact that I was appointed by Brian Weeks, former Deputy Mayor and ex-director of the Village’s LWRP, to be the spokesperson for Village residents (See previous objection by to LWRP #C005850). Village resident participation is guaranteed pursuant to the actual DOS contracts and was our federal laws.
As a Village resident and owner of a water dependent business along the Patchogue River, I should be able to speak to Ms. Russo regarding the Village LWRP, but she, like the Village, have taken an adversarial stance. I believe that the Village employees and Ms. Russo have taken this adversarial stance with me because I have chosen to exercise my first amendment rights and petition the government with regard to harms done to my water dependent business and residents. I also believe that the Village
does not like my participation in the LWRP process, representing those who take issue with this redevelopment process as it has been implemented. I have stated my concerns with respect to the redevelopment on the Patchogue Riverfront and the various environmental issues confronting us in the community.
The Village government is in violation of the LWRP contract. The contract ask that“rights of way be mediated.” Instead, the LWRP has become an opportunity for the Village to assert right to the Patchogue River bottom, rights they do not have, and “make land grab.” What the Village is actually doing is ceding right to those who have made campaign finance contribution. The Village has breach the Suffolk
County Maritime Plan. This plan put constraints on development. Instead the Village has ignored the plan and has rewarded certain community member’s development rights, in exchange for inappropriate campaign finance contribution to Village decision makers.
The following are my allegation with regards with Village impropriety regarding LWRP redevelopment in the Village and its agents:
THE LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAMS (LWRP) PLAN.
1. Under federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Policies and New York State Department of State Local Waterfront Revitalization/Redevelopment Programs and Policies grants/contracts, the Village was contracted by the New York State Department of State (“DOS”) to work with the Village residents and begin the process of redevelopment and revitalization along its Village coastal areas including the Patchogue River; programs also including the revitalization of “new and expanding water-dependent uses, such as marinas;” “to protect existing water-dependent commercial, industrial, and recreational uses and to promote their future sitting in accordance with the reasonably expected demand for such uses;” including “waterborne commerce” and “water-related public and quasi-public areas,” “water-enhanced uses are activities that do not require a location on the waterfront to function, but whose location on the waterfront could add to public enjoyment and use of the water’s edge, if properly designed and sited;” “water-dependent use as which includes so as to “subsidize the water-dependent use” and “enhance” them (herein and hereinafter referred to as “LWRP”).
2. Along these lines, I have sought, as was his legal right, to review compliance and other records under LWRP. I, on behalf of Village residents, and myself sought to obtain evidence that the Village met the LWRP requirements. At various times, I have been denied LWRP records and information through various Village excuses, tricks, distortions, improper, fraudulent, arbitrary, and capricious determinations
by the Village, Village Board of Trustees and officials including Village Clerk and custodian of Village records and J. Lee Snead, former Village Attorney and FOIL Appeal Records Officer. This blocking of access to records and information in and of itself violates LWRP policies and rules as they apply to the
LWRP grants/contracts, including grant/contract #C005850, and #C006343 that records be open to the public for audit and review. The Village unlawfully blocked access to records, particularly the LWRP “work products” and “DOS tasks” of the various LWRP grants/contracts, including LWRP Contract #C005850, and #C006343 thus defrauding residents and my legal rights to be informed, educated, reached, i.e. “public outreach” and “community consensus.”
3. Under the LWRP Grant #C005850 there was no “community consensus” and that “work product,” “Task 5: Project Scoping Meetings and meeting summaries” were doctored up to look as if the Village had reached “community” consensus. I believe that the LWRP plan has developed and incorporated new techniques to fraudulently manufacture “community consensus” (See public outreach comments below).
4. LWRP DOS and federal policies require “community consensus” and “public outreach” in the redevelopment and revitalization of its coastal areas. With respect to the LWRP, the Village is in breach of contract. For years the Village Board of Trustees has constructively denied me access to LWRP records though they have publicly promised the records. For many years and also on or about June 20, 2006, June 29, 2006, and throughout 2007, Village Clerk Patricia Seal and J. Lee Snead, Village Appeals Records Officer, have constructively denied access to LWRP records, which should be available
to public under the LWRP federal policies and LWRP DOS rules, the Code of Ethics and the Freedom of Information Law (See FOIL index attached). The Village has concealed records as to require LWRP tasks not performed and does not give access to records with respect to adequate “public outreach” and “community consensus.” In fact, Mr. Dean represented to the community that the Village was not going to pursue any further LWRP when C000585 was terminated. Trustee dean, as director of the LWRP said the Village was going to pursue the redevelopment privately. I believe this was done so that unlicensed and permitted environmental remediation could take place on the property of Village insiders. Once the Village realized that the LWRP was funded by Title 11 environmental monies, Village decision makers proceeded to quickly allow for environmental non–compliance on certain properties to decrease cost of development for Village “insiders.”
5. I was shocked to hear that the Village had clandestinely applied for another LWRP grant and even more surprised when it did not appear on the DOS website as do other grants contracts. I was further shocked to see that the Village broke the law and concealed the grant number from the public at its first purported LWRP public meeting. This is significant as the Village Clerk has the policy and practice of blocking the public from records if the person does not know the exact name of the records one is requesting, i.e. the grant or contract number. In fact, Patricia Seal, Village Clerk, will not provide the record because she arbitrarily and capriciously deems it “not reasonably described” (See FOIL index attached). When I further asked Trustee Lori Devlin about the status of the “new” unidentified LWRP, she
said, standing on a linguistic trick that there was “no LWRP.” At this public LWRP meeting, Ms. Devlin was concealing government business from the public by changing the definition of LWRP to mean that the existing LWRP contract/grant was not an LWRP because it was a contract to establish an LWRP. This novel and devious twist to the game that the Village Clerk and Village Attorney had been playing, further exasperates the Village residents’ participation in the New York State funded “outreach.”
6. For many years, Village employees through frauds, deceits, misrepresentations, breach of protocol, further enumerated below, have blocked my access to this LWRP evidence and records thus harming residents from benefiting from the LWRP, while favoring others in the Village as to the redevelopment/revitalization in the Village. The blocking of access to these records was to curtail his investigation in the Village’s policy to favor some over other residents and business owners under the LWRP and other codes.
7. The Village, Village Board of Trustees, Seal, Snead and Village LWRP representative are non-responsive to “work product” records and “work product” records that was not performed. The Village did not properly performed LWRP Scoping Meetings.
9. On or about September 26, 2007, the DOS was finally responsive to my request for a list of all LWRP “work product” records of DOS tasks performed and not performed. The following is a list of those deficiencies as reported by New York State Department of State:
Task 5—Project Scoping Meetings: All records re: Scoping Meetings and meeting summaries—any records that reflect “community consensus” or how the Village plans to accomplish this task. DOS produces: Agenda and Meeting Summaries.
All LWRP records showing how the Village notified or will notify Village residents regarding future or past LWRP: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: Application to become a member of the Village LWRP “Advisory Committee,” (a/k/a “Steering Committee”) and how one is chosen to be included or become a member of this committee or any other “public outreach:” DOS produced: Newspaper article.
Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: Names of members “LWRP Advisory Committee”(a/k/a Steering Committee Members and LWRP Committee Members): DOS produced: LWRP Committee Members and conference call minutes.
Task 6—Steering Committees: All LWRP records re: “Public Please also note that the Village has been maintaining, for the past few months, in public forums, that it is not involved in another LWRP contract, in order to conceal their malfeasance concerning previous DOS LWRP Contract #005850.
Public Outreach—public meetings with written summaries—a summary of the public meetings
including attendees, the meeting’s purpose, issues or questions raised and appropriate responses to the issues and questions: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 7—Public Outreach: All LWRP records re: Study Area Profile—summary description of study area and summary of exiting conditions in the Northeast Quadrant of the Patchogue River or the Patchogue River: DOS responded “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: developmental pressures along Patchogue River. DOS responded “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: “moratorium” and who has gotten permission to build during this moratorium: DOS responded that “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: Village planning initiatives relevant to the coastal area and Patchogue River as well as all “previous planning studies;” DOS responded that “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: Patchogue River Maritime Action Plan and the website: DOS produced: www.co.suffolk.ny.us/planning/PatchogueRiver.pdf
Task 5—Project Scoping Meeting: All LWRP records re: Project Scoping Meeting(s) and summaries, with inventory of problems completed; relevant previous planning records; and other information of the meeting summaries of agreements/understandings reached: DOS produced: Draft LWRP Scoping Meeting Minutes (2 pages).
Task 2—Review & Rank Proposals: All LWRP records re: “Contractors:” DOS produced Agreement between Contractor and Village of Patchogue (110 Pages).
All LWRP records re: “Harbor Management Plan.” DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records regarding any and all completed “Written Summary of Issues, Conflicts and Opportunities;” “Harbor Management Plan-Identification of Existing Authorities;” “Summary of the issues of local and regional importance that should be addressed in the Harbor Management Plan” and “Summary of opportunities to resolve issues or advance desired projects or uses in the harbor area;” including “necessary [cross out] proposed or potentially desirable zoning changes” “redevelopment of underused or deteriorated areas for projects that advance harbor management efforts” that currently exit: “This summary shall also include a brief description of any conflicts between existing land or water uses and existing zoning standards. Such conflicts might include: existing nonconforming water-dependent uses in areas appropriate for water-dependent uses, but zoned for non-water-dependent uses; and intertidal wetland areas, bays or other offshore or intertidal areas that are used or zoned for residential or other inappropriate uses in these areas. ”DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: Summary of existing authorities. DOS responded, “Records not reasonable described.”
Task 7—Public Outreach: All LWRP records re: LWRP component feasibility study. “The Harbor Management Plan may be completed as a separate document. DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 7—Public Outreach: The minutes of public LWRP meeting already conducted: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: LWRP Title 11 environmental monies exist.
Task 6—Steering Committee: All LWRP records re: Steering Committee: DOS replied “no records” exist.
Task 6—Steering Committee: All records re: LWRP Steering Committee’s actions taken to ensure public participation during preparation of action plan; and action taken to assist public outreach and Application to join LWRP Steering Committee: DOS replied “no records” exist.
All LWRP records re: Draft Request For Proposal (RFP): DOS replied “no records exist.”
Task 2—Review and Rank Proposals: All LWRP records re: Consultation between DOS and Village to review and rank proposals received as a result of RFP: DOS produced: LWRP RFP Score Sheet (10 pages).
Task 9—Economic/Market Analyses: All LWRP records re: Community and immediate region Economic/Market Analysis with all appropriate sources—economic market analysis that provides sufficient justification to identify a range of realistic future land uses to occupy the area targeted for redevelopment: DOS records produced: Draft Redevelopment Action Plan for the Patchogue River Northeast Quadrant (33 Pages).
Task 10—Future Land Use Defined: All records re: LWRP Task 10: DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 11—Techniques to Ensure Compatible Redevelopment: All LWRP records re: Task 11 with appropriate design standards and guidelines, local laws, and graphic or drawings; DOS responded “no records” exist.
Task 12—Action Plan: All LWRP records re: Task 12: DOS produced: Draft Redevelopment Action Plan for the Patchogue River Northeast Quadrant Section 6 (33 pages).
Task 16—Measurable Results: All LWRP records re: Measurable Results. DOS responded “no records” exist.
10. The Village denied me access to LWRP records, which he was entitled to review under the LWRP contracts and LWRP Policies that would evidence “work product” not performed.
11. The Village unlawfully denied access to LWRP records and evidence in an effort to conceal that the Village had not properly performed LWRP “public outreach” and reached “community consensus” and to denied me access to the political process.
12. The Village denied LWRP records on false reasons in order to conceal LWRP noncompliance
and wrongdoings and to restrict my waterfront business opportunities in the Village under the LWRP.
13. During the Scheme period, and the years 1997 through July 2007, various the Village, employees and unidentified and concealed persons took over the LWRP process; and unlawfully misled, concealed information from the public, and improperly held LWRP Steering Committee Meetings, whose dates and time are not of public record. In violations of the LWRP grants/contracts and LWRP Policies moneys were paid to these Steering Committee Members of which there is no documentation.
14. In LWRP public notices and at LWRP public meetings, the Village’s policy and practice allowed their LWRP “agents” to defrauded those in attendance as to the purpose of the LWRP contract/grants and the meetings tasks by misrepresenting the meetings’ purpose as “public information.”
15. Furthermore, Village residents were not informed as to the New York State and federal LWRP Policies and DOS LWRP grants/contract tasks, including but not limited to Grant/Contract C#005850, which demanded that the Village gather public information, reach community consensus and have community participation in the LWRP process.
16. Furthermore, the Village and their LWRP “agents” did not allow these LWRP public-meeting minutes to reflect adverse comment and concerns by the public.
17. Furthermore, Village DOS LWRP records evidence the lack of adverse comments by the public in the various LWRP public meetings minutes, reflect improper recording of public LWRP public meeting minutes. My comments at these LWRP public meetings are not on the record. Furthermore, the Village blocked me access to LWRP records to conceal the improper transcription of these LWRP public meetings.
18. Furthermore, the LWRP Steering Committee and LWRP agents designed the meetings in such a way that public comments were only heard in LWRP Sub-committee; and LWRP Steering Committee Member and LWRP “agents” filtered, censored, summarized and reinterpreted those LWRP public meeting comments for the official DOS LWRP written records and for general public at large. In this manner, the Village, Village employees, LWRP “agents,” LWRP Steering Committee Members deceived the DOS, Village resident. In this way they sought to gain unfair advantage and conspired against residents.
19. Furthermore, the Village, employees, LWRP Steering Committee Members and LWRP “agents” use LWRP Grants/Contracts moneys, including #C0005850, for unknown Village agendas, which includes the authorizing of condominiums for “insiders” and contrary to LWRP study objectives, and moratorium for “outsiders.” The times and dates in which these events occurred have been concealed by the lack of compliance with the LWRP Policies and LWRP grants/contracts, including Grant #C005850, the Village Ethics Code and destruction of records.
Frauds and Deceits
A. Denial and Destruction of Evidence
20. Access to information and redevelopment rights are some of the most important rights of business expansion and growth. As a Village and New York State resident and I have right to know government determinations related to Village government. In an effort to document these harms and to safeguard my water dependent business along the Patchogue River, I have requested vital information from the Village that was mostly denied. In an effort to obtain these records pertinent to his business activities, I spoke at Village Board of Trustee Meetings and requesting records, information and answer of various governmental policies, practices and regulations.
21. The Village improperly transcribed Village Board of Trustee Meetings and at other times completely omitted my presentations, questions, answers, as well as the answers of the Village Mayor, Board of Trustees, Village Attorney and the public. The improperly transcribed meetings include the meeting of June 12, 2006 where they threaten to remove and arrest me, thereby violating his rights to petition the government and to exercise his Freedom of Speech.
22. After I complained to the DOS terminated the LWRP under the deception that the Village was no longer willing to pursue the process. Therefore both the DOS and the Village acknowledge that the Grant is incomplete and its results “finds” obtained by fraudulent means cannot be used in any new Governmental study or the present LWRP.
23. The LWRP is an effort to aggregate the different community interests into a shared collective and collaborative vision of the future. The Final LWRP product is intended to be used to gain further financial and political support for an “established” agreed on direction for the community. Taken in this light, the current LWRP plan fails. The community was not contacted or notified properly. The community was not educated properly, they were not included in the process and their interests were
not protected. It is a contractual fraud to claim that community outreach had been reach by placing of an ad in the local paper seeking Steering Committee members and conducting two short meetings. It is a further contractual fraud to conceal these Steering Committee meetings from the public. Most people in our community do not understand the LWRP or what it means to future development. I have been personally and financially hurt by this con.
24. Please be aware that if the New York State Department of State do not stop these practices, the future monies obtained from federal and state moneys pursuant to the LWRP will be fraudulently obtained.
