• Jacki Livingston

    Spitzer setting things right and having gumption and representing his constituents? I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Spitzer serves himself. If that happens to accidentally help anyone else on the planet, it was by accident…but he will pretend that was intended. Someone is greasing the wheels, because I guarantee you, if someone else greased harder, he would flip faster than an acrobat at the circus. Don’t hero worship too hard. Once you are over 65, or become disabled, he will completely ignore your existence. Trust me.

  • Jacki Livingston

    I am so sick of the privileged “speshul snowflakes” of this county. “I bought an overpriced cracker box of a house, so I should be able to dictate who else can build or live here, and how it is done, UNTIL THE END OF TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME!!!!” Sheesh, people, they want to build some affordable places to live for people who largely live on a fixed income. They aren’t building a strip club and poker parlor. Calm down, build a bridge, and get the H over yourselves. Building brings jobs. Jobs bring income. Income allows people to buy the same overpriced cracker box houses, as well as pay taxes that support the schools your little darlings go to. Seems to me that all this angst and drama might be better spent on some really important issues, like homeless veterans and hungry children.

  • David Zenger

    That judgment was subsequently appealed by Kisco and the diocese and the
    appellate court found that the isolated designation was not “spot
    zoning.”

    And the appellate court got it wrong.

    • Steven G Duff

      Got it wrong, yes indeed.

      But, in an interesting twist — showing that ideologically-driven judges can get to whatever opinion they want — the appellate court found that this WAS in fact “spot zoning.”

      But, they then concluded that spot zoning can be just peachy. As long as the zoning change wasn’t “capricious” and is shown to be “in the public interest.” And since the supervisors had concluded this project was such, it is… wait for it… a perfectly dandy instance of spot zoning.

      There’s more informed but brief (and atypically understandable) legal analysis about this decision here:

      http://www.agclawfirm.com/content.aspx?view=news&newsID=144&categoryID=10

      So again, the CA appeals court finds county supervisors are free to do whatever they like, this time vis-a-vis spot zoning. And again, with seemingly very little chance of any judicial check succeeding, since there now is just a trivially easy two-part test to get past.

      This is not simply legal hair-splitting. This nasty opinion opens the door to all sorts of mischief in all plan areas.

    • Gloria Sefton

      The appellate court has gotten many cases wrong of late. Two of them are before the Supreme Court.