Letters to the Editor April 25

When process breaks down, trust follows, writer responds

To the Editor:

I’m writing in response to Councilwoman Briggs’ letter, “Pound Ridge Town Board member disputes allegations over wrongdoings,” (April 18). 

As a six-year Pound Ridge resident, I believe the town board has done a commendable job fostering a strong community. But even good governance loses public trust when critical processes break down.

With 40 years in a field where process and transparency are non-negotiable, I’ve learned that people can accept difficult outcomes if procedures are followed. When they aren’t, the legitimacy of the result — and the institution — deserves scrutiny.

Three recent issues raise concern: first, late financials — not filed for four or five consecutive years; second, the cannabis issue —now the subject of litigation over flawed processes; and third, the water project — also under litigation that warrants public understanding.

Councilwoman Briggs called the April 2 agenda item a “timely update.” If so, why wasn’t the other lawsuit given similar visibility?

Yes, the referendum vote supported the water project, but only after a petition forced that vote. The board could have initiated that process but chose not to.

The April 2 agenda stated the lawsuit seeks to “annul and revoke the $7.6 million WIIA Grant,” portraying the petitioner as anti-public health without mentioning her claims of financial misstatements and procedural flaws. That framing is one-sided and unfair.

Both a town board member and fellow resident questioned the truthfulness of my April 11 letter. The Recorder itself reported that the lawsuit alleges the town “blatantly lied” on its grant application.

So, let’s ask plainly: Did the town complete the $7.6 million grant application truthfully?

If not, then frustration over losing “free money” should be directed at those whose actions put the project at risk, not at those asking questions. If Councilwoman Briggs stands for honest conversation, she should be demanding that answer.

Ron Asaro

Pound Ridge

---

Why is the Pound Ridge board spending taxpayer money?

To the Editor:

At the Pound Ridge Town Board meeting last Tuesday (April 15), the town’s counsel said that the town had intervened in a litigation brought against two state agencies by a town resident seeking to annul the state agency’s $7 million grant (that will need $4 million in matching money) to construct an $11 million water project. 

Counsel’s presentation was on the agenda and typically a citizen can engage in a dialogue with the board about a matter on the agenda — especially one about spending money. Instead, I was told that I could only ask my questions during a later unrelated public comment period. During a public comment period the board is not obligated to answer questions. To at least get my questions on the record, I used that period to ask and respectfully request answers at the next board meeting to several questions, including this one: 

“The suit mentioned earlier was against two state agencies. Why is this board spending town money on the litigation when the [state’s] attorney general has to defend the litigation and can make exactly the same arguments that the town’s attorney is making at no cost to the town?”

Town residents may be interested in hearing the board’s answer at its next meeting. In my view, if the board won’t answer a question about why it is spending taxpayer money, perhaps it’s time for a change in Pound Ridge governance.

Norman Bernstein

Pound Ridge

---

Palladino says hiring Bedford promoter was a costly misstep

To the Editor:

The Bedford Promoter — like too many Bedford Hills businesses during her tenure — has officially left town. Her departure marks yet another misstep by the town board, leaving residents with fewer answers, a lighter budget, and no meaningful progress on the revitalization of downtown Bedford Hills.

Whether she resigned or was dismissed is unclear — a symptom of the town board’s notable lack of transparency. What is clear is that over $100,000 in taxpayer funds were allocated for a position that delivered few measurable results. And now, we’re right back where we started: no plan, no leadership, and no clear direction forward.

As disappointing as this outcome is, it was predictable: 

— July 26, 2022: the town board was asked why it sought to outsource business and community development instead of leading the effort themselves, something each of the members campaigned on.

— Sept. 1, 2022: residents warned that hiring a consultant without first identifying and quantifying the actual problem and deliverables for that role was a recipe for failure.

— Sept. 24, 2023: the promoter’s first major update revealed just how off-track her strategy was, focusing on surface-level optics while ignoring the real needs of local businesses.

— Jan. 1, 2025: despite no tangible results (and no baseline metrics by which to measure them), the town board again extended her contract and gave her a raise.

Now, the role is vacant, the budget drained, and the town board is silent.

Rather than continuing to fund feel-good initiatives with minimal impact, we urge the board to revisit a practical solution that was  proposed in 2022, a business navigator program. Developed through direct conversations with Bedford’s small business owners, this initiative would provide hands-on support to help brick-and-mortar businesses open and thrive. It would address the core challenges of running a business in Bedford: excessive fees, burdensome red tape, and permitting costs that are 25 percent higher than in neighboring towns, largely due to overly restrictive environmental policies that are unique to Bedford.

Bedford didn’t need a promoter. It needed leadership. It still does.

Let’s get this right.

Mike Palladino

Bedford Hills

---

Pound Ridge man says litigation is a remedy, not ‘obstruction’

To the Editor:

Without taking any position on the pros and cons of the controversy over the Scotts Corners water infrastructure project, nor the question of how the Pound Ridge Town Board and staff have handled the objections, I do take considerable exception to the statement by board member Diane Briggs in her recent letter to The Recorder (“Pound Ridge Town Board member disputes allegations over wrongdoings, “ April 18) that “... litigation to reverse a democratic decision is not courageous dissent; it is obstruction.”

The laws of the State of New York fully provide for a party to object through administrative procedures or the courts to any project, public or private, that the party deems violates state regulations or the law.

Litigation is a remedy that is long established in practice and in law. It is manifestly not “obstruction.”

Bill Hewitt 

Pound Ridge