The columnist Reynolds.
At issue was a 78-acre creekfront property which De Niro purchased for $1.5 million in 1997 and improved considerably. The town assessor valued the property at almost $9 million, the owner at $3.7 million. A judge settled on $5.6 million last June. The owner appealed for $3.7 million. The town spent more than three years and just under $130,000 in litigating the case.
De Niro, who claimed to know nothing of this because his people were the ones who talked to the town’s people, could have continued the litigation, but decided not only to cease and desist but also to reimburse the town for its legal expenses. To do that the wealthy actor may have had to cash a residual check or two. But the offer was much appreciated by a relieved town board.
It seems the town board, under supervisors Zatz and Katz, did not tell town residents how they were running up their legal bills, hiding behind the cloak of “legal action” for three years. With the threshold of pain in Gardiner an estimated $130,000 and faced with even more expenses, the town fathers finally decided to consult taxpayers as to whether to pursue or abandon their case.
Fortunately for all concerned, a “surprised” De Niro stepped in. Apparently, he was too busy filming those I Love the Hudson Valley ads to pay much attention to his upstate home.
After all its time, money and effort, the town would have realized only about ten percent of any settlement. The school district would have gotten six or seven times as much, but would have been stuck with whatever settlement the town negotiated.
Given respective interests, school boards should be more active participants in these all-too-frequent assessment battles. But current law does not permit that.
On the town level, taxpayers have every right to know from the get-go what kinds of monies are being spent on their behalf. The state open meetings law says they can conduct such affairs in secret, but no law says they have to.
Lawyer, lawyer
Old-timers used to tell the apocryphal story about a young lawyer moving to a small town, her prospects bright. There wasn’t another lawyer for miles around. Alas, she starved for years until another lawyer moved to town. Then they both got rich.
Which raises the rhetorical question: can city government have too many lawyers? I think the short answer is yes.
The dispute between Kingston’s Common Council and the city’s mayor over the aldermen wanting an attorney of their own — the city corporation counsel by charter currently handles all legal matters — illustrates one of the downsides of too many cooks in the kitchen.
Some members of the common council sought to add $25,000 to Mayor Gallo’s 2015 budget to hire an attorney to represent the legislative body. They claim, with considerable justification, that Corporation Counsel Andrew Zweben is de facto the mayor’s lawyer. The mayor hired him, and the mayor can fire him at will. For the corporation counsel to side with the legislative branch against the mayor is therefore highly unlikely. In order to achieve some semblance of equal powers in government, aldermen say they need their own counsel. Zweben, who also acts as the mayor’s de facto spokesman, slamming certain aldermen in the press on numerous occasions cannot help but feed into this perception as well.
Aldermen have a point, to a point.
Gallo might order the subservient Zweben to serve the legislature better, something which sounds counterintuitive for this mayor. In the event they differ on legal issues they could retain an arbitrator at fee.
The concern is that another lawyer would only create litigation.
“anti-tourism, anti-business, bully-volunteer”… one of the main reasons I left the county. A place that has so much capital that it can waste those public funds on private vendettas that go against the public interest is a place I refuse to plant roots. Small-mindedness and access to power is a toxic combination.
If the railroad has really spent $300k on legal fees, why the heck didn’t they spend some of that money on fixing the corridor before this lawsuit!?!
The County spent most of that. The CMRR defended themselves.
Mr. Hein is a politician. Money talks. He finally hears it speaking.
This isn’t over; the railroad needs to reach the reservoir, at least, and better yet, get all the way to Phoenicia. But this is finally a step in the right direction. In the end, whether or not the county wastes more thousands – or millions – trying to oust the railroad, the CMRR (or whoever the operator turns out to be, assuming they’re competent) can only be a winner for everyone.
Just to quickly clarify my previous comment, lest it be misread: I do NOT mean to impugn Mr. Hein with any suggestions of financial impropriety. My point is that he seems finally willing to see money flowing into the county thanks to the activities of the CMRR.
Here is CMRR’s chance to show they can do it… The vetting of them during the RFP process should prove to be very interesting. This considering they haven’t been able (willing?) to provide the same basic basic business records to the county to date. This despite the lease requirement that they do so. Interesting indeed!
Giving the railroad just 2 miles with no chance to grow, is the same as giving a kid a 10 speed bike. And then telling him he can only ride it to the end of the driveway.
Hugh, you have Keri Savona and Lisa Fisher mixed up. Lisa Fisher was elected to the state supreme court. Keri Savona was elected to U.C. Family Court Judge. Your article listed “Keri” Fisher as being elected to the state supreme court.
Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Hugh Reynolds and the rest of the staff at the Kingston Times