 |
| May 04, 2025 |
Welcome! Click here to Login
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Click to visit the
Official Town Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 10, 2011
To the editor:
At the 8th August work session of the board of trustees of Cornwall-on-Hudson, there was some discussion regarding the rehabilitation of the former Water Department Building. Trustee Mark Edsall offered the information that he is against "throwing good money after bad."
Mr. Edsall is right, of course.
At the same meeting, there was a discussion of the apparently aborted attempt to recover, by means of litigation, the cost of bringing the DPW building on Shore Road into compliance with building and safety
codes. This means that there will probably be, in the near future, a referendum on a bond issue to meet those expenses. The taxpayers of this village have already paid too much for that building, if only in legal fees, never mind the original cost and ill-will generated in this village on both sides of the issue.
I will not vote in favor of any such bonding, nor will i in any way promote the rehabilitation, at taxpayer expense, of a public building badly built on a quite probably toxic site. This village should not have to pay for that building twice.
I, too, am against throwing good money after bad.
Dave House
Comments:
|
Good money after bad, indeed.
The Wieboldt "guesstimate" for remedial work on the above-ground problems ONLY ranges from $291,000 to $351,000. That's as much or more than the Village got for selling the old, fully-functional DPW building (and then just spent, rather than using to reduce the debt on the new one).
And that "guesstimate" isn't a firm number, doesn't take into account possible toxicity at that former dumpsite, and, from what I could gather, does nothing to address the soils problems of which Village Engineer James Fitzsimmons forewarned the Board in May 2005, and which the Board completely ignored in going forward with the project.
So there are A LOT MORE questions to be answered before anybody starts looking to hand the taxpayers the debt for what, in financial terms, amounts to a THIRD DPW building.
posted by Jon Chase on 08/10/11 at 3:28 PM
|
|
Consider the possibility that the new law firm was hired and all those legal fees were paid precisely so the builder, architect, engineering firm, former trustees, etc. would not be sued or otherwise held accountable. Thus, the fight with Mayor Gross in the first place...
posted by Ted Warren on 08/11/11 at 9:32 AM
|
|
the video has been uo on ArgenioAndrew on YouTube.com
here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmiEreRk1hY
I sugest that you watch the aug 6 video and compare it to the worksession
thanks
Andrew Argenio
posted by Andrew Argenio on 08/12/11 at 11:07 AM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
 |
|
|
|
