Snow in April.
I had a couple of days of craziness so there is a lot to cover.
Little Town Life, a new and valuable blog, covers some local politics in their last post but don't miss the discussion of the Copake Police. About time someone takes a look at this issue. Congrats guys. Good. Keep it up.
There will be a PUPPET SHOW tomorrow. And this is VERY IMPORTANT to remember.
Criminal contempt charges. Paul Mossman, the county Department of Social Services commissioner. Hopefully this article is essentially fair and complete because I haven't found another one to compare it to.
Hudson Democrats made endorsements.
Funding for livestock farmers. Hey, I might qualify!
They found the cobra in the Bronx Zoo.
Jump off bridge story up on firefighter site.
Great breakdown of cuts to public schools.
Dogs in New Lebanon library tomorrow.
Martin Roby posts the audio of the March 28, Stuyvesant Planning Board meeting.
Bike trips, including around here. Here a couple Chatham bike rides I suggest to visitors from the city.
Article on our Congressman Gibson "man from Kinderhook." A puff piece.
Antique bike sale in Copake.
Photo gallery of bushes in and around Hudson.
When I think of the lives of the troops and their families you really can't complain too much about a little zoning harassment and some false charges in criminal court.
Andrew Wilfahr died in Afganistan. Rest in peace. Terrible.
Complaining and trying to stop the problem are two different things, mind you.
In Germany, a school decided to show the kids where their food comes from. Rather than taking a field trip to a farm, though, they asked the farmer to bring in a meat bunny and slaughter it: right in front of the children.
Glad to know other countries have stupid people too. I didn't want this to be another example of American exceptionalism.
Martin Roby also takes issue with the Register Star article about me.
It is odd to start with "the long running saga" which has never before appeared in the Register Star...
Here are Martin's Comments from the Stuyvesant Forum:
Here is Martin's opinion:
o Bob Green should not have included the statement about someone being drunk. It was not true and not news. Because he did and I was putting the meeting online I felt the need to defend the only person that has trouble collecting his thoughts and appears a little inebriated. I think he just had something going on at work, but hey a couple of beers might be the perfect thing before a Stuyvesant meeting. I find this odd because Bob Green refuses to print that Supervisor Val's property is next to the park. He feels that is "not news" but someone having a beer before a nutty Stuyvesant town meeting is?
o Bob Green quotes a lot of the more opinions then facts. The quote about the "hicks" was un-necesary. He can't print an article about Tom Shanahan, a Stuyvesant official, calling me "a god damm bozo: but he can print that?"
o Bob Green makes Will look like he is ranting about a federal lawsuit ; in fact Will does nothing of the kind.
o Bob Green Fails to point out the sound engineer has never been to the site.
o Bob Green Fails to mention the "lawyer switch trick"
o Bob Green Fails to mention the "letter reading trick"
o Bob Green Fails to mention the in-direct employee trick. A load of nonsense .
o Bob Green fails to mention facts such as Will agreed to go to the planning board, made a deal with the town attorney and was completely bamboozled.
I am no longer completely banned from commenting on stories at the Register Star site. If you go to this excellent story, (well written as usual) you see me asking if I am banned. After I found out that I was no longer banned from commenting (even when I wrote "good story guys"-- that was banned) I wrote back to say that now that I'm not banned I would like to comment... but that comment was not run.
Since I started this blog, I started to track my comments... like this one that never ran:
Thank you for including the link to my blog... I would quibble with the report of the case but I understand that a situation that has developed this far along is hard to summarize quickly. Thank you for covering county business Francesca.
But I am grateful that the Register Star ran this great comment from Andrew:
" Having not been familiar with the details of this neighbor issue, I attended the public hearing at Stuyvesant Town Hall on Tuesday night. The topic; loud and disturbing dog barking at the (sometimes up to) 50 dog kennel / “camp” on a rural side street in Stuyvesant Falls. Although there are no neighbors in close proximity, speakers who claim to be within ears shot of the kennel presented a mix of “hear no dogs barking at all ever” to “it’s non-stop all night”. The complaining neighbors assured supporters of the “dog camp” that if they were listening to barking dogs all the time, they too would be seeking relief. The substantial presence of supporters were quick to their feet speaking of good neighborly deeds and outstanding character of Pflaum. Also taking the podium were people from outside the town who came to share experiences with municipal sound ordinances that use a specific and measurable decibel point to base legal limits to noise. They maintained that otherwise, whether a sound is disturbing or not becomes a matter of subjectivity only.
The standing room only audience became tense frequently. For example, when the Planning Board was poised to no longer allow public comment from those not living in Stuyvesant, there was an audible stir in the room. The Planning Board’s own attorney jumped in and diffused the situation by stating, “It’s a public hearing and anyone from the public can speak”.
Board member, Sean Cummings spoke of his visit to the dog camp and findings of inaudible barking (while dogs were enclosed). Board member, Tom Shanahan grilled Pflaum’s attorney in a sarcastic power-play that was continuous and difficult to watch. At one point, both Shanahan and fellow Board member, Pat Casey stated in concert that Pflaum was in violation of having more than “two full time employees” which is all that’s allowed for a Stuyvesant “home business” permit. Casey and Shanahan believed that in Pflaum‘s own words, he had in avertedly confessed to this. From the behind dais, a section of a letter penned by Pflaum himself was read aloud to the room. In it, Pflaum states that his business in Stuyvesant is responsible for “directly and indirectly” employing six people. Pflaum maintains that the number represented both the two full time employees he has , and also other services to whom he in turn “indirectly” employs by nature of having a small business. What part of “directly and indirectly” do Shanahan and Casey not understand? Plaum’s attorney offered up payroll records to Stuyvesant Planning Board to demonstrate the two person payroll. The dog camp owner is offering his own compromises in order to work with the complainants. These measures include keeping the dogs enclosed from 7 PM until 7 AM each day. Midway through the speakers, it became evident that Plaum, although already given permission by this Board to conduct his business, was making his own concessions in an attempt to accommodate complaining neighbors, who in turn offered no solution other than shutting the dog camp down and restoring the values of their properties which they allege are now adversely effected. Ironically, two neighbors who have lived there for 35 years are Realtors disagree. They frequently walk the neighborhood and hear dog barking that is coming from the other households. They then listed neighboring homes to the few complainants that have dogs who are left out on leashes and enclosed in cages in other neighborhood yards. I see sloppy-speak on behalf of Planning Board Members that could add-up to some serious dollars in the tax-payer-funded “Stuyvesant Legal Defense Fund”. The town needs work with this local small business and hopefully attract more small businesses to town. "