So, the person who receives medical treatment and doesn't pay is the victim, and the insurance company that pays for the treatment of those who do pay their premium is the perpetrator? Now isn't it disingenuous to make the claim that people who do not have private health insurance are not eligible for medical insurance? People are so quick to conveniently overlook the fact that most of these people(if they signed up) would qualify for Medicaid. Which is an optional government insurance that is partially funded by the federal government and optional for States to participate. It is not mandated by the federal government.
Quoted from 664
Incoherent? You seem to understand it fine. Of course I will question someone's education when they are spouting off insanity, maybe I should have questioned the poster's sobriety instead?
You got me on that one. It was coherent grammatically - but illogical in its context. Comparing a federally funded and mandated service with the inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution was a bit of a stretch.
So, the person who receives medical treatment and doesn't pay is the victim, and the insurance company that pays for the treatment of those who do pay their premium is the perpetrator? Now isn't it disingenuous to make the claim that people who do not have private health insurance are not eligible for medical insurance? People are so quick to conveniently overlook the fact that most of these people(if they signed up) would qualify for Medicaid. Which is an optional government insurance that is partially funded by the federal government and optional for States to participate. It is not mandated by the federal government.
You got me on that one. It was coherent grammatically - but illogical in its context. Comparing a federally funded and mandated service with the inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution was a bit of a stretch.
I never said they were the victim, or that the insurance company was a criminal (though it could be argued that making health care a business is in itself criminal). What I am saying is that you are paying more for people who can't afford health care any way. Get these people to regular doctors and the costs go down, that is why the independent study found that it will actually SAVE America money in the long term.
And a lot of jobs pay well enough to preclude you from Medicaid but either aren't year round or are small businesses (remember they make up a large amount of people in this country) that can't afford the insurance. So if you own a company with under 50 people you aren't screwed by the plan at all.
And no one will argue the part of the health care bill that got rid of maximum allowance before an insurance company dumps you. Even if you have health care, what if you get cancer or need heart surgery. My max is currently 1 million, with inflation and high cost surgery possible as I get older, I don't want to wonder what if...
Can stop a vote from going your way? FILIBUSTER it. Screw rational thought anymore the republican party is now voting as a block that won't engage in reasonable discussion without screaming key words like 'LIBERAL, SOCIALIST AGENDA, DEATH COMMITTEE" or other crazy non-sense. [quote]
Haven't been on here in a while, but Stein has my mind going....can stop so filibuster? Ok, can't win, so buy votes by promising state millions and BILLIONs in money so reps from those states vote yes? Hmm which is the worse of the two evils.
First amendment vs. Healthcare reform? Dropping an f bomb in public......no cost Writing a letter to a congress person to complain, cost of a stamp and a piece of paper Heathcare reform.....BILLIONS and new TAXES
Your right good comparision.....
As for Sync's zoning issue, people lived there on US Gov owned property, yup, there wasn't and didn't need to be a variance (the feds are not bound by zoning laws) from the Light Industrial zoning, no variance there for, no non-conforming use (one year dark clause doesn't apply, that only applies to variances) therefore a zone change is required. GP asked about enviromental review, well look it up, zone changes require that, not him splitting hairs, more him making sure the law is followed and the change is done correctly.
Do I feel in the long run the zoning should have gotten the nod, yup, do I think it should be done correctly as by the law as established for zone changes, yup. Sync should have waited to occupy the units until after they got their changes
It was former government property as such it was exempt from local classification and tax free. the property may have paid intra-government service fees but not taxes
the moment in time the property entered private hands it should be classified and fall under current rules/codes otherwise it would be grandfathered forever under the federal classification and for that argument to hold true it would also be a tax-free property
works just like being in the the army overtime after an 8hr work day - not there are areas the federal domain where the rules dont apply
and if rotterdam ventures is violating the zoning regulation by having residential buildings in a Industrial zone both owners should be dealt the same card
In my deck at the end of the lease renters must vacate the town has every right to shutdown the operation subdivide if necessary properties owners apply for the correct zoning I would be hesitate to vote for a zoning change for a business who knowingly did not follow town code if the zoning change is a approved Get a lawful Cert of Occupancy and move forward
this is my stand, at least I have one
pile on...
Talking to each other is better than talking about each other
Here's another angle we can look at this. Why didn't Rotterdam's previous town boards rezone the property from light industrial to residential while it was being used as military housing?
C I think you know the answer for this question, but based on some of the answers people post on here, let's help them understand no previous board rezoned the property because no rezone was needed or applied for. Good olde Uncle Sam does what they want with the land they own, that's just how it goes. The new owner of these gov't owned lands want them for something other then what the zoning says they need to apply for the change.....
It was former government property as such it was exempt from local classification and tax free. the property may have paid intra-government service fees but not taxes
the moment in time the property entered private hands it should be classified and fall under current rules/codes otherwise it would be grandfathered forever under the federal classification and for that argument to hold true it would also be a tax-free property
works just like being in the the army overtime after an 8hr work day - not there are areas the federal domain where the rules dont apply
and if rotterdam ventures is violating the zoning regulation by having residential buildings in a Industrial zone both owners should be dealt the same card
In my deck at the end of the lease renters must vacate the town has every right to shutdown the operation subdivide if necessary properties owners apply for the correct zoning I would be hesitate to vote for a zoning change for a business who knowingly did not follow town code if the zoning change is a approved Get a lawful Cert of Occupancy and move forward
Where can I find that an environmental study is required by law? I can't rightly argue the legalese behind it but I feel it is right in granting the zoning. Many of the residents even at 325 Duanesburg Rd were in favor of fining Sync for not getting zoning done. I'm at resident there and I was helluva pissed to move in and hear about this two weeks after getting moved in.
Back in the 40's when it was the "Army Depot" the gov't owned all the property. At some point, the warehouses were surplused, and sold to private ownership and the zoning was changed for compatible use. The gov't. still maintained ownership of the apartments for military personnel. Now the residential component is surplused and SYNCH becomes the owner. I am not saying this is right, but many governmental buildings do not meet New York State Bldg. Code. Many of the State bldgs. do not meet State bldg. code, the floors will not support NYS Code for office loadings. No one knows if in fact the SYNCH property would pass code. I would doubt it, it is probably full of the old lead paint, may be asbestos, electrical wiring concerns etc. But like the surplused warehouses, the apartments should be rezoned for their compatible use, residential. If the order were reversed, and the apartments were surplused long before the warehouses, no one would have raised an eyelid.
There is fault for all parties, Rotterdam Ventures could have bid higher if they wanted the property, they also could have immediately shut off the sewer connection to prevent occupancy. SYNCH should not have occupied without a CO, inspection, sewer service and appropriate zoning. Rotterdam should have an inspection report in hand confirming the properties were checked for code violations. They should have restricted all occupancy until the zoning was in place. But we are where we are, and how do we resolve this at this juncture? Probably the only way is the manner the TB handled it.
Where can I find that an environmental study is required by law? I can't rightly argue the legalese behind it but I feel it is right in granting the zoning. Many of the residents even at 325 Duanesburg Rd were in favor of fining Sync for not getting zoning done. I'm at resident there and I was helluva pissed to move in and hear about this two weeks after getting moved in.
The State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) is required when addressing Zoning and Comp Plan amendments. It weighs environmental factors such as changes to the existing character of the neighborhood, air quality, noise pollution, light pollution, stormwater, etc. and weighs the impacts against the economic benefits to the municipality. In this case, there are no environmental impacts any different than the prior use when it was gov't. owned, so the study would likely not have any content that would be additional to the prior use of the property.
This has been settled, last fall and last week. You are beating a dead horse. People WANT to know you have things done for you if you know Petey pr Pauly or whoever has "clout" because that is how Rotterdam works. It has been proven, so find another issue.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
This has been settled, last fall and last week. You are beating a dead horse. People WANT to know you have things done for you if you know Petey pr Pauly or whoever has "clout" because that is how Rotterdam works. It has been proven, so find another issue.
There is a 4 month statute of limitations for filing an Article 78 proceeding. People don't pay attorneys (experts in environmental law and municipal zoning and planning) to come and speak at public hearings, perform the legal research and prepare multiple page analysis provided to the Town, and then walk away from that investment. My bet is you will see the Town in litigation, whether a Judge rules in their favor or not is a separate issue. I can't imagine Galesi being satisfied with this in light of the Supreme Court decision rendered on Synch's occupancy. Far from over . . . IMHO.
Sorry if this is a dead issue to you, but I'm a resident there at Sync's property and I've come into the discussion a bit late. Because of the housing issue I've been to 3 TB meetings and want to know what the opponents to the re-zoning have for reasons. I can understand if an enviromental study wasn't completed, that it should have been.
However, I believe the Supreme Court's ruling was although against Sync at the time, they ruled that the TB had the say in whether or not the zoning could be granted. The SC did not specifically say Sync should be denied. For that reason I believe no lawsuit will bear fruit,
There is a 4 month statute of limitations for filing an Article 78 proceeding. People don't pay attorneys (experts in environmental law and municipal zoning and planning) to come and speak at public hearings, perform the legal research and prepare multiple page analysis provided to the Town, and then walk away from that investment. My bet is you will see the Town in litigation, whether a Judge rules in their favor or not is a separate issue. I can't imagine Galesi being satisfied with this in light of the Supreme Court decision rendered on Synch's occupancy. Far from over . . . IMHO.
I heard one of the opponents of the zoning change specifically mention an Article 78 on her way out of the town meeting after that vote.
Most other businesses like gun clubs or junk yards are grandfathered when they have been in existence as long as the apartments have been there. It would appear that mistakes were made by Galesi, Sync, and the town board over the years but maybe there could be a compromise made that all sides can live with.
Logged
