The Ghent Planning Board tonight voted again on the proposed Ginsberg’s expansion project, this time on a resolution to deny the application. The previous vote was 5-1 against a resolution to approve the proposal.
Though the second vote appeared redundant to many observers—their attorney having described the first vote as a “decision of a denial”—the result was the same: the Board voted 5-2 to definitively deny it, on various grounds related to emergency management, lot size, scale, lighting, noise, mining, and other impacts on both immediate neighbors and general community character.
It is not believed that a third vote should be necessary. Ginsberg’s would now need to go to court to overturn the decision, if they wish to keep pursuing this location.
Some icing on Didi Barrett’s campaign cake: Final results indicate that once all ballots were counted in her re-election race, she prevailed in both of the counties which comprise her Assembly District.
On Election Day, Barrett showed a decent lead in Dutchess, but Mike Kelsey made the race competitive by leading in Columbia. Now that absentee ballots have been counted, it appears that Barrett also narrowly won in the more northward county, by 15 votes (5,682-5,667).
A source close to the Didi Barrett campaign believes the Democrat’s lead in the 106th State Assembly race is now up to 350 votes.
That figure includes tallies so far from both Dutchess and Columbia counties, neither of which has completed its absentee vote count. However, with Barrett's lead increasing in both counties, the likelihood of Kelsey catching her keeps getting dimmer.
Absentee ballot counting in the closely-watched 106th Assembly race between Democrat Didi Barrett and Republican Michael Kelsey is inching along. So far, Barrett has been steadily increasing her narrow 137-vote lead from Election Night.
Going into the absentee count, Barrett trailed “on the machines” by a small amount in Columbia County, but made up those votes and then some in more populous Dutchess County.
However (as expected by most seasoned election observers) Barrett has made up ground in Columbia County in the 11 districts counted so far. In those districts (which include Ancram, Clermont, Copake, Claverack, and Taghkanic), Barrett has picked up another 107 votes, according to estimates provide by an observer of the counting process.
Moreover, Barrett has won 9 out of the 11 districts counted so far, with Kelsey only squeaking out 1-vote victories in two districts.
Ballots reportedly are being closely scrutinized, and in some cases challenged, by the candidates’ representatives. Roughly a third of the nearly 1,000 absentee ballots pending in Columbia have been opened. A similar number are outstanding in Dutchess, but results are not known.
Generally, one would expect that if Barrett is improving in Columbia, her weaker territory on Election Night, she would also improve in Dutchess, meaning that Kelsey’s hopes are fading.
As predicted here on Election Night, absentee ballots in Taghkanic are swing the results to a different candidate than the one declared a winner that evening by The Register-Star. The 65 ballots opened so far heavily favor of independent candidate Linda Swartz over Republican Carolyn Sammons, in a special election for the Town Board seat vacated by Deborah Gilbert.
Unofficial tallies shared by an observer of the contentious process indicate that 47 went to Swartz, and 17 to Sammons, a 30-vote pickup for the former. Sammons previously had a 9-vote lead “on the machine,” meaning that Swartz is now 21 votes ahead.
Reportedly, some 27 ballots were challenged by partisans of the candidates, and thus have not been opened yet. In theory, Sammons could still win. But to retake the lead, Sammons would have to win almost all of those challenged ballots by a 25-2—a highly unlikely outcome. And since many of those challenges reportedly were lodged by Sammons’ representatives, believing them to be Swartz voters, the likelihood of another reversal seems even slimmer.
More probable is that the Sammons camp will not want to rack up legal fees unnecessarily on a low-percentage court case, and will withdraw their challenges, allowing the remainder to be opened, and adding to Swartz’s margin of victory.
A series of media gaffes over the past five days has prompted Taghkanic residents to wonder: Why does the Register-Star seem to want a Republican candidate to be elected to the Town Board so badly?
On Saturday, an article in the paper by Katie Kocijanski inexplicably reported that Republican Carolyn Sammons was running unopposed for the Town Board seat vacated by Deborah Gilbert’s resignation.
But in fact, Sammons had an opponent: independent Linda Swartz, who was endorsed by the Democrats.
The Reg-Star had every reason to know that its “unopposed” claim was completely untrue. On July 17th, it had reported that “Taghkanic Democrats nominated retired New York State Department of Transportation official Linda Swartz to seek the Town Board seat that is up for election Nov. 4.”
Moreover, the Columbia County Board of Elections ran ads on that same day (as well as the Saturday before) which listed both Swartz and Sammons as candidates. The “unopposed” article appeared on page A11; the ad listing two candidates appeared on A9.
Howls of protest from Taghkanic readers forced the Register to run a corrective article which admitted that the paper “erroneously reported Saturday that Republican incumbent Carolyn Sammons was running unopposed for a seat on the Taghkanic Town Board,” followed by profiles of both Swartz and Sammons.
One would think that would have been the end of it. If anything, one might expect such a glaring mistake—assuming it were an innocent one—to lead to an increased sensitivity about the remaining coverage.
Ah, but no.
On Tuesday night, the Register-Star posted a video of managing editor Mary Dempsey reading results from around the County. Dempsey reported incorrect numbers indicating that Sammons had prevailed by some 79 votes.
In fact, Sammons was only ahead by 9, not 79—a major difference, since Taghkanic races for a long time now have been decided by absentee votes, which are not counted until several weeks after the election.
Almost every two years, there seems to be a hotly-contested absentee count for the Town. In recent memory, there was a bitter recount and protracted court cases related to absentees in Taghkanic which could have decided the Murphy/Tedisco Congressional race, which made Statewide news.
As reported here on Election night, a source present at the polls was certain that the Register’s numbers were incorrect, since they included more total votes than the number of people who turned out at the polls that day. A simple call to the Board of Elections by this site quickly verified that the gap was only 9 votes.
Moreover, the same Taghkanic source indicated there were roughly 119 absentee ballots pending in the Town. Democratic operatives estimated that these would break heavily for Swartz. If correct, Swartz would pick up about 39 votes, and eventually win by about 30.
Anyone familiar with local elections going back as far as 2005 would know that such is often the pattern in Taghkanic: The Republican runs narrowly ahead on Election Day, and the gap is significantly narrowed or trumped by the Democratic nominee’s absentee supporters.
Sometime early on Wednesday morning, Dempsey posted a second video with the correct numbers from the machines, but without any mention of the large number of absentees pending.
And then came the third blunder: The Register ran yet another Kocijanski article on Wednesday morning, with a headline claiming that Swartz “fell” to Sammons. The body of her article stated confidently that “Taghkanic residents will continue to have Carolyn Sammons on their Town Board.”
But as noted above, anyone familiar with Taghkanic—or just familiar with the fact that a nine-vote lead anywhere can easily be the erased by absentees—would know that the race remains too close to call.
Again, this prompted justified howls of outrage from the voting public. And so today, the Register-Star had to backtrack yet again, posting a corrective article whose title admits that “Absentee ballots could decide town board race.”
Why this should be so hard for the Register is anybody’s guess. The question now is: Will the paper’s coverage of the absentee count further extend this streak of unforced errors, or will the sorry experience result in greater care being taken from now on?
[NOTE: Most of the above mistakes since have been scrubbed entirely or edited after the fact to minimize their egregiousness.]
The New York Times has Gibson ahead 65%-35% as of 11:15 pm, with about half of election precincts reporting—a whopping 30% lead. The Eldridge campaign had recently claimed that its polling showed it was “only” 10% down.
The Times’ raw vote total is 124,428 for Gibson, 67,024 for Eldridge, a more than 57,000-vote difference.
To put that in perspective, in 2012 Gibson received 138,657 (53%) and his opponent Julian Schreibman garnered 120,661 (47%). In other words: Fewer people voted in this cycle than the last—a Presidential year. Gibson actually got some 14,000 fewer votes than last time, yet increased his margin of victory by nearly 40,000, because Eldridge got 53,000 fewer votes than his Democratic predecessor, losing by substantially more than Schreibman (-30% vs. -6%).
* BARRETT vs. KELSEY (106th Assembly race)
On Facebook and in a statement released to the media, Didi Barrett is declaring victory, saying that “I am very pleased that I will continue to represent the people of the 106th Assembly District. We look forward to adding to our victory with the counting of the absentee ballots.”
Also on Facebook, Mike Kelsey says “I am down by 79 votes. This race will be decided by absentee ballots. Stay tuned in the weeks to come.”
A source close to the Columbia County BOE claims that Barrett won the whole district by 137 votes, going into the absentee count. The New York Times shows the same lead with 100% reporting.
A source close the the Barrett campaign claims that the absentee ballots break down roughly 2-to-1 Democrats to Republicans, but that the Kelsey campaign is vowing a stiff counting fight.
This race has switched leaders multiple times as the count wore on, and due to the margin of victory cannot be called until absentee ballots come in and get counted over the two weeks or so... which likely means a hotly-contested counting process ensues. Generally, however, Democrats in our area have prevailed among absentee voters. So assuming Barrett has a lead going into that count, her confidence of prevailing seems warranted.
A well-informed Taghkanic source predicts Swartz will be the winner. Sammons won on the machines, the source says, by 9 votes (241-232). But 70 out of the estimated 119 absentee ballots are believed to be for Swartz, according to Democratic estimates. If correct, that 49-vote absentee edge would erase Sammons’ lead and make her the winner.
Bizarrely, the T-U has very different numbers: 311 for Sammons, 232 for Swartz... which would put the race out of the reach of absentees. A poll worker further believes the T-U numbers are incorrect, as fewer than 480 people reportedly voted today. A source close the the Columbia County Board of Elections indicates the same 241-232 numbers were reported there.
For the second time in a week, The Register-Star slimes Swartz—prematurely declaring her the loser, not recognizing that absentee votes have consistently decided close races in Taghkanic for almost a decade now. Last week, the paper incorrectly reported that Sammons was running unopposed, as if to erase Swartz’s candidacy.
* MARCHIONE vs. HOWARD (43rd State Senate race)
With about 80% of the vote in, Marchione is a 2-to-1 leader over Brian “A+” Howard.
* GREENPORT HIGHWAY PROPOSAL
With three of three precincts reporting, it looks like the proposal will fail to make the Highway Superintendant’s position appointed rather than elected. The tally is now about 596-513 against the resolution.
Multiple news outlets are reporting that a 7,000-gallon oil spill occurred early Friday morning at First Fuel & Propane, located on Route 9H in the Town of Ghent.
It’s cute when a young child fibs. Most kids are very bad fibbers, so there is little risk of them fooling anyone. Plus their motives are usually harmless, and their alibis often hilarious. (“Did you eat all the cookies, Billy?” —No, the goldfish did.)
Attorney Andrew Howard’s picture from his website
The same can’t be said of grown men, especially grown men being paid upwards of $150/hour out of public funds... So what’s the excuse of Andy Howard, the former County Attorney turned lawyer for the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC)?
At this week’s CEDC meeting, Howard told an obvious whopper. During Tuesday’s meeting, the topic came up once again of Hillsdale Supervisor Art Baer’s request for legal confirmation that CEDC’s $1 land deal with Ginsberg’s food was aboveboard—free of any conflict of interest.
Previously, CEDC (via Howard) had declined to issue the certification Baer requested, vaguely claiming that the request was too vague.
But this time, Howard took things a step further, grossly embellishing the nature of Baer’s written inquiry. This misleading colloquy sounds a lot like an attempt to gin up fake outrage among the CEDC’s elite membership, who in the past have expressed reluctance to comply with ethics disclosure, training and oversight.
CEDC Board member Scott Wood raised the matter of the “letter from Supervisor Baer asking us to review the legality of certain issues we had done. And we had discussed it on here with our counsel, and we believed that everything we had done was legal and in conformity.”
But though Wood felt CEDC had fully responded—an opinion shared by few outside observers— he expressed surprise that another Supervisor found the response “evasive,” and wondered what they could do to clear up the matter.
That’s when Wood turned things over to Howard, who says:
You received a general request for a legal opinion that everything this Board has done has been legal and ethical standards. Not specifically with Ginsberg’s, not specifically with anything… It seemed very ambiguous and vague.
In fact, Baer’s request was hardly general, and was not aimed at “everything” CEDC had ever done. Rather, it specifically and narrowly dealt just with the Ginsberg’s land transaction.
The subject line of Baer’s August email inquiry was:
Ginsberg Land Sale
The body of the message featured a formal request for “a legal opinion from CEDC counsel and/or the County Attorney that all ethic and legal guidelines have been followed in this proposed transaction” [emphasis added].
The purpose of the request was clear to CEDC executive director Ken Flood, who spelled it out just as explicitly in an early September memo to Howard (attached here). Flood noted that CEDC “has received a formal request for a legal opinion that all ethic [sic] and legal guidelines have been followed in the proposed land transaction between CEDC and Ginsberg’s” and sought Howard’s response.
And indeed, at that time it seemed Howard understood the narrowness of the request. Two days after Flood’s memo was sent, Howard himself referenced Baer’s specific request about “the proposed land transaction between CEDC and Ginsberg’s.” While refusing to provide the assurance sought by Baer, Howard then proceeds to discuss details of that deal—and no other CEDC business.
Does that mean I start and look at each and every one of your appointments, to see if you were legally appointed? Does that mean I go to Lisa and look at every one of the legal notices, since I was appointed?
“We should be done with this!” Bartolotta is heard to exclaim on Cusano’s recording, followed by a loud sigh. (Earlier, Bartolotta said of the County’s request for reimbursement of $109,950 paid for the land that “it just makes me crazy... It’s just ridiculous!”
Wood suggests that CEDC “should take the offensive… Maybe that is a strong word… Take the initiative… Relying on counsel’s affirmation that we have been doing things correctly.”
A voice which sounds like CEDC Board member Mike Vertetis derisively says that responding further won’t “quiet the chance to run off at the lip a bit in front of the paper.”
CEDC Board member Greg Fingar chimes in that Baer and [Ancram Supervisor Art] Bassin are “both retired,” so they should be able to attend meetings. Bartolotta demands to know whether the two are up for re-election next year, echoing an insinuation from a previous meeting by CEDC President David Crawford—and Ginsberg’s project engineer—that “this is all political.”
Perhaps more illuminating than Howard’s whopper is that the rest of the CEDC Board did not utter a word of correction, though Baer’s specific request has been widely reported and commented upon in the past few months.
