Caruso on Woodbury and sales tax

To the editor: My opponent claims a verbal agreement with the County Executive, caught on tape. I suggest, you, the County Executive and I meet and review the tape to hear exactly what the County Executive did say and what he did mean, and not depend on your version. Feb. 22, 2005, when the County Executive was screened by the Woodbury Republican Committee, he said he had no plans to change the current sales tax revenue sharing distribution. If he agreed in 2004, wouldn’t you think when questioned at the meeting about Woodbury getting more sales tax money, he would have declared this to his own Republicans. It is highly unlikely that you would not have made this good news announcement in 2004. You have been a county legislator for eight years without resolving the sales tax revenue sharing inequity to Woodbury. Five years ago the current sales tax revenue sharing agreement was re-negotiated, and came before the County Legislature on Feb. 8, 2001, where you voted for it as is, without any additional sales tax revenue for Woodbury. We disagree about the procedure for changing the formula for sales tax sharing. I explained to you and the board members that it is the county’s responsibility to pass a resolution (Home Rule message) first, asking the State Legislature for the changes. You missed the point of my presentation about volunteer fire and ambulance members benefits. The law the county passed using Bills A2039 & S3350 Chapter 74, signed into law May 31, 2005, has several differences from the law that I presented to the Legislature, Chapter 244, Bills S290 & A329, signed into law July 19, 2005. Chapter 74 law has a $3,000 cap, which I am seeking removal of, and adding a longevity clause, for the volunteers who have years of service, and equal benefits for volunteers who are renters. Chapter 74 law does not specifically include these provisions. Before simply dismissing my proposal, if you read the two laws, you would have seen the difference. My opponent says, “why not talk about the issues that are important to the community.” I guess my opponent does not see these as important issues. Well, I do. Let’s talk about another important issue, the proposed zoning changes for all the remaining lands to be built on in Woodbury. The Town Board is proposing local laws affecting our zoning, by creating Town Wide High Density Zoning and Clustering. I have firmly opposed these zoning changes to High Density Development from the onset. My opponent continues to be silent on this extremely important issue. Sincerely, Ralph Caruso Candidate 14th District