Hits: 121
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saturday, August 12 at 9 am
Wednesdays, Now – November 26
Here Comes the Astorino Veto within 10 Days. Immigrant Protection Bill “Not Good Law”:Astorino. Promises Veto
Hits: 129
WPCNR WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From the Westchester County Department of Communications. August 7, 2017:
Joined by Westchester County’s largest Hispanic law enforcement organization, members of the county’s Departments of Public Safety and Correction, and union leaders from the Department of Correction, County Executive Robert P. Astorino today promised to veto legislation that would make Westchester a sanctuary county because it would jeopardize public safety, particularly those in our immigrant communities, would cost taxpayers millions of dollars and would be nearly impossible to enforce.
The Immigration Protection Act was approved 10-5 by the Board of Legislators earlier today. The county executive now has 10 days to veto the Act.
“Westchester is a diverse county with vibrant immigrant communities that are welcomed and valued,” Astorino said. “I’m opposed to this Act because it puts public safety at risk, especially those in our immigrant communities; puts Westchester at odds with our own federal government; creates rights not available to ordinary citizens; will jeopardize approximately $13 million in federal funds and is so confusing as to be unenforceable. It all adds up to be a dangerous idea, and for those reasons I will veto this legislation.”
In addressing issues with the Act, Astorino noted that enforcing immigration laws and deportations are the responsibility of the federal government, not county police, and that this Act severely restricts how local communities and law enforcement communicate with federal agencies, such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.
The county executive also said that his Administration had long worked with legislators and immigration groups to come up with workable legislation. But after much testimony from advocates, public safety, corrections and social services, the grave flaws in the Act were apparent and unworkable. In this case, political grandstanding was put before public safety, Astorino said.
“Just because proponents of the bill say it doesn’t create a sanctuary county, doesn’t make it so,” Astorino said. “Our County Attorney has given us an opinion that passage of this act makes Westchester a sanctuary county and at odds with the federal government.”
In his legal opinion, County Attorney Robert Meehan raised concerns that the law established “sanctuary policies,” jeopardizes millions of dollars in federal funds, and raises substantial questions as to whether it violates federal law.
“There are several provisions of the IPA which specifically limit the discretion of and prohibit county law enforcement agencies and officers from cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities,” Meehan wrote. “As such, the legislation, based upon a review of recent statements by the Attorney General of the United States and the Department of Justice, establishes ‘sanctuary policies’ which jeopardize receipt by the county of federal law enforcement grants.”
Hector Lopez, president of the Westchester Hispanic Law Enforcement Association, the county’s largest law enforcement group representing Hispanic officers, said that while his members respect and understand the vital role that immigrants play in this county, passage of the law endangers law-abiding residents while providing a safe haven for undocumented immigrants who have broken the law.
“The passing of this Act opens the doors for undocumented immigrants involved in criminal activity, such as the ruthless MS-13 gang, to migrate to Westchester and prey on other immigrants, many of whom will not report crimes committed against them for fear of retribution,” Lopez said. “This act is placing handcuffs on our law enforcement officers, not the criminals.”
George Longworth, commissioner of the Westchester County Office of Public Safety, called it reckless.
“I want to be 100 percent clear: This bill is being passed over the objections of Westchester County law enforcement authorities,” Longworth said. “It will make Westchester families and police officers less safe. Anything that inhibits our ability to work with federal law enforcement partners like the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies is a bad and reckless idea.”
In working closely with the county, Legal Aid Society of Westchester Executive Director Clare J. Degnan lauded the valid goals of this Act, but was concerned with its potential for unintended consequences. She was particularly concerned with areas relating to sharing information with federal authorities and issuing of judicial warrants for inmates, along with conflicting and contradictory language within the law itself.
Immigration reform is needed, Astorino said, but it is the duty of Congress, not local legislatures.
“Let me also stress that I support immigration reform. For more than two decades, Republicans and Democrats have failed to fix our nation’s immigration system. That failure is why we are here today. So yes, reform is needed. But this legislation is not it. Good intentions do not make good law.”
Immigration Protection Act Approved 10-5. Veto Override would need two more votes if County Executive Vetos Bill.
Hits: 178
WPCNR WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From the Westchester County Democratic Caucus. August 7, 2017:
The Immigrant Protection Act, an Act introduced by Majority Leader Catherine Borgia & 7 Democratic Legislators in February, passed with a bi-partisan vote of 10-5.
“The intent of this bill is to create a policy of public safety for all in Westchester County,” said Majority Leader Catherine Borgia (D-Ossining). “In surveys all across the country, immigrants have reported that they are less likely to contact police officers if they have been the victim of a crime because of potential immigrant consequences. Westchester is too diverse a County for our residents to live in fear. Thank you to all of the advocates who put countless hours of hard work into helping craft this law for the people of Westchester. It is now time for the County Executive to do the right thing for all of those who call our community home.”
This legislation will protect the confidential information of all residents, regardless of immigration status, and ensure that limited county resources are not misappropriated.
“The Immigrant Protection Act improves public safety for all county residents,” added Legislator MaryJane Shimsky (D-Hastings-on-Hudson). “Law enforcement agencies around the country agree that community trust and cooperation is critical to their work. When an immigrant mother in Westchester is the victim of a crime she needs to trust that she can seek the support of the police – this legislation aims to do exactly that.”
“We are deeply gratified to have the support of the majority of the Westchester Board of Legislators and for the leadership of Legislators Borgia and Maisano, who worked tirelessly alongside us to create the Immigrant Protection Act. We are also incredibly grateful to the collaborative effort by a stellar collection of advocates who worked to bring this bill forward,” added Carola Bracco, Executive Director of Neighbors Link. “We strongly encourage County Executive Astorino to uphold the will of the majority of legislators who support this vital piece of legislation.”
“The United States is a nation of immigrants. It has always been a strength of our democracy. Having first-hand experience of what it is like to be an immigrant in this country today, I am certain this will improve public safety for everyone and allow better cooperation between law enforcement & Westchester County residents,” said Legislator Virginia Perez (D-Yonkers).
“This legislation is not a sanctuary bill. It simply ensures county law enforcement focuses their attention and resources on protecting public safety in Westchester – while complying fully with federal law,” concluded Borgia.
National Association of Sports Officials Condemns Replacement of Referee by Tournament Officials Based on Coach Protest
Hits: 113
WPCNR VIEW FROM THE UPPER DECK. From the National Association of Sports Officials. August 7, 2017:
| RACINE, Wis. — LaVar Ball had had enough. A female referee working his game was felt to be so unsatisfactory to him that she needed to be replaced – and now – at halftime of the game…
Or, he was picking up his marbles and taking his team home. The management of the Adidas Summer Championships in Las Vegas ordered that she be replaced. A firestorm erupted inside the officiating community and from well outside the officiating community. As for us, we are outraged, and not just at Mr. Ball for his boorish behavior. NASO was asked to issue a brief statement: The National Association of Sports Officials, a 26,000-member organization, abhors the thought that a coach’s dissatisfaction could lead to a referee being replaced during a contest. Further, NASO takes strong issue with any sponsoring entity requiring that sports officials turn a blind eye to poor and unsporting-like behavior during a game. That is simply unacceptable. The officials should not agree to such an arrangement – ever. The game is entitled to better. Our integrity requires better. |
72 YEARS AGO TODAY: HIROSHIMA
Hits: 149
WPCNR OBSERVATIONS. By John F. Bailey. Reprinted from the WPCNR Archives. August 6, 2017:
Seventy-two years ago in 1945, the Enola Gay, a single American bomber dropped an Atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan.
The terrible effects of that single bomb are a horror that has never been repeated
A second bomber, Bock’s Car on August 9, dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki.
Unknown thousands of Japanese citizens’ lives were vaporized, burned, and maimed and two cities leveled to the ground in an instant in both bombings.
To grasp what one atomic bomb did to Nagasaki. Readers may see the photographs Japanese photographer Yosuki Yamato took of the aftermath of Nagasaki the day it happened at http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/photos.html#journey/63.jpg
The decision to drop the bombs was made after the United States, Great Britain and the Republic of China demanded Japan surrender in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26 or face “prompt and utter destruction”.
The Japanese government did not surrender.
The United States deployed two nuclear weapons dropping one on Hiroshimi, 72 years ago today and one on Nagasaki on August 9.
Over four months the bombs resulted in the deaths of 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, half dying the day the bombs fell.
The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness.
In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizeable garrison.
The horror of those two bombings and the aftermath, the injuries created have resulted in an effort and reluctance on the part of nuclear-armed powers to avoid any nuclear attacks since that date.
Within a few days of those bombings, Japan surrendered unconditionally, officially ending World War II.
The decision to use the bombs by the United States has long been debated. A dialogue on what the bombs did, why the decision was made was collected in 1995, the fiftieth year since the bombings. It is available at http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/commentary/decision.html
Today the missile rattling engaged in by the North Korean leadership makes it more and more possible that such unthinkable destruction is being contemplated as an option.
It shouldn’t.
Senator George Latimer Retains the Independence Party Line November
Hits: 98
WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2017. From the Latimer Campaign. August 4, 2017:
Sen. George Latimer (D-Rye) defeated an attempt by incumbent Rob Astorino to deny Latimer the Independence Party ballot line in court yesterday. Latimer was endorsed by the Independence Party earlier this year; he garnered over 1,400 signatures from registered party members, and is now assured of competing on more ballot lines in the November election than any previous Democratic nominee for County Executive, with five lines possible – the Democratic, Working Families, Independence, Women’s Equality, and Reform Parties.
WHITE PLAINS WEEK OF AUGUST 4–ON THE INTERNET NOW INSTANTLY
Hits: 102
JOHN BAILEY JIM BENEROFE PETER KATZ
EXPLODE ON THE INTERNET NOW
White Plains Week for 8-4 has been posted.
The youtube link is
The link to whiteplainsweek.com is
THE DEMOCRATIC CITY COMMITTEE CHALLENGE OF
LECUONA, GOLDMAN, KRAVER, SIDDIQUI PETITIONS
THE ELECTRICITY SHOCK: JOULE ASSETS MAKES BID THAT WOULD GUARANTEE ELECTRICITY SAVINGS FOR 20 YEARS. TO BE OFFERED TO SUSTAINABLE WESTCHESTER MEMBER CITIES AND CUSUMERS IN FALL.
THE WHITE PLAIMS MALL REZONING HEARING MONDAY.
PLAYLAND ATTENDANCE AT MIDSEASON
AND
MORE
Mr. Mayor: Why You Should Withdraw Your Lawsuit Against Primary Challengers
Hits: 93
WPCNR THE LETTER TICKER. August 4, 2017 (Provided to WPCNR with request for publication):
Open letter to Hon. Mayor Thomas M. Roach
Dear Mayor Roach:
We understand that you, John Martin, John Kirkpatrick, and Justin Brasch have filed a challenge with the Board of Elections regarding the signatures that were collected on petitions for Milagros Lecuona, Alan Goldman, Saad Siddiqui, and Michael Kraver to get their names put on the ballot for a Democratic primary this September.
This is well within your right. The procedure that is in place with the Board of Elections should provide enough assurance that, if the signatures on these petitions are deemed invalid, your opponents will not be allowed to run. What we do not understand, however, is why a lawsuit has also been filed against them. It is unclear to us what purpose this lawsuit serves.
Saad Siddiqui in particular is a longtime friend of the Greer family. He has been friends with Alexis since their years at White Plains High School, and he spent a great deal of time at our house speaking about politics and history with Councilman Bob Greer, who as you may recall served on the White Plains Common Council for over 15 years.
Saad is the kind of candidate Bob would have endorsed: an honest, intelligent, idealistic, concerned citizen who has gotten involved in politics for the good of this city and its residents. He has dedicated his professional career to helping those in need, from his early work as a legal aid attorney to his current private practice. He has consistently devoted his considerable energy to community service and social justice, and he is a District Leader for the White Plains Democratic City Committee.
Saad and his family cannot support his portion of the burden of this lawsuit with their own money, and lawsuits are so expensive that his campaign dollars may run dry simply to help his slate pay legal fees. If this occurs, Saad and at least some of the other members of his slate may become unable to run at all.
We would like to believe that using a lawsuit to drain the campaign coffers of fellow Democrats is not your intent. However, with an established challenge procedure already in place that does not involve such costly measures, it is difficult to see any other intent behind the lawsuit.
Perhaps even more troublingly, the lawsuit as filed by you and the other members of your slate seeks to invalidate all the signatures collected by the members of Saad’s slate.
Doing so would effectively silence the voices of many of those you are sworn to serve and runs counter to the Democratic ideals Bob held so dear. Again, it is within your right to challenge petitions before the Board of Elections, but we respectfully request that you withdraw this unnecessary lawsuit.
Sincerely,
Helen Greer and Alexis Greer Heidenberg
Legislator Ken Jenkins Charges Astorino Refuses to Share Airport Proposals with Board of Legislators
Hits: 118
Westchester County Legislator
Kenneth Jenkins.
WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER. From County Legislator Kenneth Jenkins. August 3, 20017:
Ken Jenkins charged Tuesday that County Executive Robert Astorino is attempting to close the Westchester County Airport request for proposals process (proposals for leasing and running the county airport were submitted Monday), without working with the Board of Legislators.
The County Executive intends to keep all airport RFP responses from the Board of Legislators,” throwing a wrench” in the recommendation process, Jenkins stated in a news release. (Editor’s Note: Jenkins is running against George Latimer in the September 12 Democratic Primary to run against Mr. Astorino in the November county executive race.)
“Astorino just wants to cover up his budget mistakes and his bad management with a deal that leaves the people of Westchester in the lurch,” said Jenkins. “A $15 million hole in the budget has Astorino itching to move forward with the RFP with his preferred deal. He’s not worried about the consequences because he will not be here to see the deal through.”
Jenkins restated that the RFP process should be scuttled until there is an Airport Master Plan approved by the BOL.
The County Executive’s office receives all RFP applications, and once they are shared the consultant, Frasca, reviews the proposals to give input on which ones are viable and responsive to the RFP. All viable proposals are then shared with the members of the Task Force, who then conduct a review and make a recommendation to the County Executive.
“Astorino once again skirts his responsibilities, and refuses to conduct a transparent process with the airport RFP,” said Jenkins. “Government is about working with each other to come to a solution that will benefit the residents of Westchester County in the long run. Westchester could save $150 million if we do nothing, and don’t move forward with the RFP.
First, it was the disaster of a draft Airport Master plan (Editor’s note:presented last week) and now this clandestine removal of legislative oversight. As always, this latest action is another example of his unwillingness to work with the Board of Legislators to accomplish real progress in Westchester.”
White Plains Woman, Pleading Guilty to Causing Head-on Collision that Killed Two in Greenburgh Last Fall. Sentenced to 4-12 Years in Prison,
Hits: 136
MICHELLE BONET.
WPCNR POLICE GAZETTE. From the Westchester County District Attorney. August 3, 2017:
Westchester County District Attorney Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr. announced today that
Michelle Bonet (DOB 07/28/73) of 9 Stonewall Circle, White Plains, New York was sentenced by Judge Anne Minihan to a minimum of four and a maximum of twelve years in state prison after having pled guilty to:
- three counts of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide, class “B” Felonies,
- two counts of Manslaughter in the Second Degree, class “C” Felonies,
- one count of Aggravated Driving while Intoxicated Per Se, a Misdemeanor,
- one count of Driving While Intoxicated, a Misdemeanor,
- one count of a Driving While Ability Impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, a Misdemeanor
in the deaths of Henrietta and Carmelo Sbezzi.
On October 28, 2016 at approximately 2:15 p.m., the defendant was driving north by west on West Hartsdale Road in Greenburgh.
While driving her Chrysler minivan, the defendant was observed by witnesses crossing over the double yellow line multiple times. Just prior to the fatal event, the defendant nearly collided head-on with a vehicle being operated by a seventeen year old student coming from Maria Regina High School.
A few moments later, the defendant who was driving over the speed limit, crossed the double yellow line on West Hartsdale Avenue and collided head-on with a Lexus sedan being driven by Carmelo Sbezzi (DOB 09/06/34). In the front passenger’s seat was his wife, Henrietta (DOB 11/23/35).
The force of the impact pushed the victims’ car off the road. The vehicles came to rest with the front of each vehicle nearly touching each other and the defendant’s car almost entirely in the opposite lane of traffic.