Opponents of Edgemont’s incorporation have advocated to amend the village incorporation process by subjecting petitions to an additional vote, open to the entire unincorporated area. Indeed, one objector at the recent petition hearing called for just that. As an incomplete sound bite, it is superficially reasonable. Why not let people vote on things that they believe affect them?

It is, of course, a specious line of reasoning, if not outright sophistry. If the argument is that all unincorporated town residents should vote on all town matters that they believe affect them, fine. By extension, then, unincorporated residents should vote on villages’ municipal affairs if we believe their policies affect us.

For example, every year Greenburgh’s six incorporated villages continue to choose to govern themselves is a year that the unincorporated area has nearly $10 billion less in assessed valuations for homes which comprise its tax base. Imagine the savings to Edgemont, Hartsdale, Fairview, etc. if the villages dissolved and turned their local powers over to the town? Key Greenburgh services such as police, public works and recreation could be spread over a now-larger unincorporated population and area. Or, short of full dissolution, the unincorporated area should at least be able to vote on requiring the villages to contract with the town for major services, an approach that would lower costs for all, while keeping control over administration and land use at the local level.

Of course, the very notion that village affairs are anyone’s business but the villages’ is a nonstarter — as it should be. The unincorporated area had no say in how those villages were formed and neither do we (nor should we) have input or voting power over how they govern. If we did, those villages would lack the very characteristics (self-governance and home-rule powers) that make them locally accountable municipalities in the first place.


Mount Joy Avenue

(1) comment


Oh, pardon me my nap must have lasted longer than I intended. It seems I have woken up just in time to respond to a comment regarding who can vote on Edgemont incorporation. Did I really sleep through the Appeal of the Town's decision to reject the second petition? Has this Petition been validated already? Because if not, I have to wonder why we are reading again the same tired arguments over voter eligibility, or not. This round seems to take delight in characterizing a wholly defenseless straw man argument substituting for common sense when trying to counter logical argument. Here readers are witness to a fictional battle between legal independent municipal entities with citizens of the Town in an assumed pitched battle between the rights of an established Town and the rights of established village(s). Before I lay down for that nap, Edgemont was not yet a village but instead merely a section of an existing Town with Village aspirations from some of its inhabitants seeking to inorporate with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. While the letter writer finds little "Joy" riding high on his Mount, it should be obvious to all that creating a situation that doesn't exist is a fertile field to harvest a Daliesque crop having no basis other than harboring a distorted imagination. Meanwhile all this discussion over nothing is tiresome and returning to my nap is a valid response to a discourse likely months or years distant. Wake me again when the Referendum is green to go and I'll share with Inquirer readers what the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, Fredonia and Edgemont have in common.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.