64.9 F
Friday, August 12, 2022
Home Government Shew - Schubert Documents Released By Rye City

Shew – Schubert Documents Released By Rye City

980 Forest docs As promised by Mayor Steve Otis at the contentious Rye city council meeting last Wednesday, February 25th, the city has released the various land use documents related to Bob Schubert's dried up pond at 980 Forest Avenue.

MyRye.com is making the entire Schubert – Shew document available here. Pages 41-44 feature a letter from former city naturalist Chantal Deflefs dated February 18th, after her disclosure to MyRye.com and others regarding her allegation City Manager Paul Shew swept mistakes "under the carpet".

What parts of these documents do you think are important? Tell us by posting a comment below.


  1. Look at Chantal’s letter near the bottom then look above to the written directives and statements of the CCAC, the City attorney and the City engineer. This clearly looks like municipal malfeasance in order to avoid liability. Time for an independent review – Joe Sack was right.

  2. Chantal’s letter, in my mind, is the most important document. If her assertions are true, I think our city manager acted wrongfully, inappropriately and highly irresponsibly in referring Mr. Shubert to the health dep’t in what can only be taken as attempt to sacrifice Mr. Shubert’s life to coverup the city’s own failings.

  3. Ted C and Mr. Nelson are absolutely right. It appears that Councilman Sack knows there was wrongdoing and malfeasance on Shew’s part as well as possibly Plunkett and Otis. There needs to be a complete investigation into this matter.

    There also needs to be an investigation into the way Otis and Plunkett handled this matter in order to apparently avoid an investigation from taking place. If they took action that obstructed or impeded the investigation, as Attorneys, they should be reported to the NYS 9th District Grievance Committee at 399 Knollwood Road in White Plains. If they took action to coverup their own malfeasance or misdeeds, then the D.A. or Attorney General should investigate their actions.

  4. Hmmm, yes, clearly we have a case that ranks right up there with the Watergate cover-up. Why aren’t you suggesting contacting the American Bar Association?

    And given that these same people have already managed to fool or corrupt county and state authorities, shouldn’t the FBI be alerted, or even possibly the United Nations Human Rights Council?

  5. IO,
    That stands for investigate Otis not inboard/outboard.
    NYS 9th District Grievance Committee at 399 Knollwood Road in White Plains. I will get right on it as soon as I get out of bed. Maybe I can have my ass-istant Jack A take care of it today. Do you have their number? Maybe I should call or better yet wait until tomorrow and go in person. Do you think they will give and 8 foot turd with yellow boots and a yellow hat, any creditability?

    Do you think the U.N. Human Rights council will listen to me? Maybe if we go together they will listen. I still haven’t forgiven you about the car comment.

  6. Mr. Floatie –

    I won’t be joining you in your Quixotic mission, but let me assure you that of course the UN Human Rights council will listen to you – as a large piece of smelly crap that’s completely ineffective, you’re basically first cousins!

  7. Yes, it’s true – you’re related to the UN Human Rights council. Two completely worthless and ineffective bodies that stink beyond belief!

  8. This is absurd! It’s despicable how some town officials treat Rye residents. It’s time that all Rye residents have input into a ratings system that can ferret out these people who are rude and disrespectful to the residents of Rye who pay their big salaries! Shew must go.

  9. A troubling scenario is unfolding before our unsuspecting eyes. It is the weakening
    and erosion of private property rights of every single taxpayer in Rye. The most disturbing part
    is that the taxpayers, the property owners themselves, are the ones demanding it and are being used to further this movement. The Rye City Council and Building Dept are admirably resisting this movement.

    The mob scene that played out the other night at the City Council meeting demonstrated this. The supporters of Joe “McCarthy” Sack have sided with Mr. Schubert and have accused the gov’t of mistakes, possible corruption and cover-up in a case involving Mr Schubert’s neighbor’s drywell. Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters are accusing the City Council of siding with Mr. Schubert’s neighbor and not Mr.Schubert. In essence, these supporters are trying to twist the Rye Govt’s defense of Mr. Schubert’s neighbor’s property rights into a case of priviledge with corruption and a cover-up. Mr. Schubert’s neighbor’s property rights are what this whole debacle is about. This has nothing to do with Mr. Schubert. He has no rights when it comes to his neighbor’s property. Mr. Schubert’s neighbor is the one
    who owns the property where this dry well exists, the one who owns the water
    that is on his property, the one trying to exercise his right to
    protect his property by fixing the drywell and the one trying to exercise his right as a property owner. The City Council is right to defend the neighbor.
    At the meeting the other night the mob was demanding that Mr. Schubert’s neighbor relinquish his rights and allow Mr. Schubert to take control of what is rightfully his neighbors, the water on the neighbor’s property. What Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters fail to understand is that an erosion of a single taxpayer’s property rights is an erosion of ALL taxpayers property rights. Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters are accusing Rye City Council of exerting Orwellian control on all Rye property owners except those that are “connected” or priviledged. They follow that if the gov’t comes to the aid of a property owner and respects his rights, the property owner must be “connected” and therefore being treated with some sort of priviledge which means the govt is covering up something and is corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, it is the Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters who are exerting Orwellian control on Rye property owners by siding with Mr. Schubert who has no rights to his neighbors property and demanding that the Rye City Council give him the rights.. Ironic isn’t it? The biggest proponents of strong Rye property rights has ended up being the Rye gov’t while the biggest opponents to strong property rights has ended up being the property owners themselves! The slogan “We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!” would be very fitting for Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters. How could it be that the gov’t is the biggest defender of property rights in Rye while it’s citizens are the biggest attackers?
    How could this have happened? Well, The fear card has been played again and is being used to advance the movement of property right erosion. Identically to the fashion in which US citizens agreed to the erosion of their personal rights with the enactment of the Patriot act to protect them from terrorism, the citizens of Rye are giving up their property rights in fear of gov’t corruption being used to ignore code violations and other supposed wrong doings by select private property owners of Rye who supposedly are “connected”. The logic follows that, if only the priviledged property owners are connected , it implies that the rest of Rye property owners are getting screwed.

    Which leads us back to where this whole story started…. Hen Island. The initial push to erode Rye taxpayers rights started with Hen Island. Accusations of code violations, fear of gov’t cover-ups and priviledge and a fear of an unorthodox way of life started it off. Again the gov’t comes to the rescue of the property owners rights. The Heath Dept’s Commissioner Myerson is quoted in the paper as saying the situation is delicate because Hen Island is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The govt’s rush to the defense of Hen Island’s property rights is twisted into accusations of a cover-up because Hen Island is supposedly connected. The gov’t implicitly states that private property owners have strong rights but Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters scream cover-up and allegations of corruption. The City of Rye’s defense of Hen Island’s property rights is twisted as a cover-up. The Supreme Court in White Plains agrees with the Rye govt’s view. Again, with the courts decision, taxpayer property rights are defended by the gov’t. The Rye City Council except for Joe “McCarthy” Sack should be commended. Rye should feel proud that they have a gov’t which has not given into this fear driven movement.

    Accusations of code violations have played a major role in the movement to erode property rights. Here’s how it works. Joe “McCarthy” Sack supporters scream about code violations and the cover-up of them on Hen Island. Then Greenhaven joins in the accusations. Hen Islanders fire back. They launch their own accusations at Greenhaven and other private property owners in Rye who own property on the sound. Greenhaven and the other property owners fire back at Hen Island. All that was needed was a little push in the form of a lawsuit and an article in the Journal News and the whole situation proceeds into a downward spiral. The downward spiral feeds on itself. The spiral is very much like the deflationary spiral we’re in today but instead of assets being depreciated, private property rights are being depreciated by the owners themselves. Every property owner now begins to throw stones from their own glass house because 99% of all houses in Rye are not up to code. Unless you just finished your house yesterday, you could be the next victim of accusations of code violations. It’s as simple as living in a house with 2X4 exterior walls. If you do, you are in violation of current building code. As you see, as people throw stones at Mr. Shubert’s neighbor or at Hen Island you are in effect eroding you’re own property rights. To deny Hen Island’s right to propane is dening your right to propane. Denying Hen Island’s right to standing water is denying your own right to standing water. Denying Mr. Shubert’s neighbor’s property rights is denying your own property rights. The gov’t can only resist the stupidity of Joe “McCarthy” Sack’s supporters for so long. If the supporters grow large enough then we will have a City Council full of Joe “McCarthy” Sack’s. If that happens anyone could be the next victim, it just depends on who they want to pick on next. The ironic thing is that the next victim could be one of Joe “McCarthy” Sack’s supporters. It reminds me of the Jews who thought they would be spared as they loaded the cattle cars with their fellow Jews for the Germans. They we’re told they would be spared. And we know what happened next. The Rye City Council except for Joe “McCarthy” Sack should be commended for how they’ve handled themselves so far and I hope they succeed.

    Who benefits from this horror show? Obviously not the property owners in Rye. A person that could benefit would be someone who doesn’t pay taxes in Rye and waits until the situation spirals out of control to move in. There are candidates that fit this description. A trip to the assessors office could prove revealing..

    So what do we do? Well, first off, JOE MUST GO!. Joe’s supporters must come to their senses instead of vowing to stick around for ever. In November ,Sack must not be allowed back on the City Council. With his stunt of trying to take the Council’s business onto myrye.com he has proven he is an amateur. He still hasn’t given the people of Rye a good answer as to why he did that. Councilmen Pratt is still waiting for an answer. Secondly, the next time you see Joe “McCarthy” Sack out in Rye say “Thanks for Nothing, Joe!” because if this spiral of weakening and eroding private property rights continues, that is what Rye taxpayers property rights will be worth, NOTHING.

  10. Hey Red Scare,

    No single property owner has the right to damage the property of another. No property owner has the right to cause a significant health hazard for his other neighbors. And if you tried this “my water rights are mine alone” argument in the western U.S. you’d be laughed at and here in Rye, well, you’re being laughed at now.

    As you will note by a more carefully reading of the documents out so far, the entire watershed drainage area in that particular part of town is approximately 10 acres. All construction in this area is governed by Chapter 195 – Wetlands and Watercourses. These ordinances govern across individual property lines – whether your name be Schubert, Gates or (God rest his soul) John Motley Morehead, the last single unit owner of the lots in question, Rye’s City’s first Mayor and a staunch environmentalist to boot.

    I’ve seen zero evidence of anyone “throwing stones” at the Gates’s. They did work which was permitted by the government. The government didn’t follow its defined procedures and it made an error. It also appears that the job wasn’t completed in accordance with its own written intention (no diminution of the water flows to Schubert’s Pond) and so unintended damage resulted.

    As another writer here opined, it’s not the act, but the cover-up that is most troubling. For years Bob Schubert has been atrociously treated by this council as he sought redress. No one from lower down in this administration could do a thing for him. They were under orders. People called him “crazy” in private and told him he was sullying his reputation in public. Some of the verbal beatings he took by individual council members were directly akin to the Roy Cohn / Joe McCarthy hearings. This treatment was despicable and one can only hope these same high bench perpetrators experience something like in their own lives during their golden years.

    So reading past these inaccuracies in your windy post I must question if the real ‘red scare’ is that Joe Sack is a republican. And he is pushing for transparency. And we have some very serious charges now concerning Schubert, Hen Island and other matters. And Mayor Carey offered up his and Mayor Grainger’s services free of charge. No honest democrat (or republican) would be opposed to finding the truth and getting Rye out of the headlines. How about you?

  11. If Joe Sack is all about transparency, how about him starting with the explanation of why he felt so compelled to move City Council business to myrye.com? He still hasn’t answered that question. Has he “swept it under the rug”?

  12. Can we assume Joe “McCarthy” Sack is a strong supporter of riparian rights? Can we also assume Mr. Shubert is also? How about Joe Sack using Mr. Schubert as his Riparian Rights Ambassador. The next Nor’easter that hits Rye and dumps 6 inches of rain in a 3 hr span, Mr. Schubert can be sent to Indian village. Mr. Schubert could go door to door, he won’t be able to do it on foot he will have to rent a row boat, and he can spread the word about the wonderfulness of Riparian rights. I wanna see the look in the mother’s face when she’s standing knee deep in water holding a baby ON THE SECOND FLOOR. I wonder if Joe Sack incorporates riparian rights into his platform for re-election if he’ll “carry” Indian Village or the downtown shop owners? I’m sure Rye Brook would be more than happy to grant Rye their riparian rights by dumping all their water into Blind Brook. Will Joe Sack launch an investigation into Rye Brook’s City Council if he discovers a drain or parking lot in Rye Brook that isn’t draining into Blind brook effectively denying Rye their riparian rights? I think at the next Council meeting the man wearing the donkey head should loan it to Joe Sack so he can wear it.

  13. The initial City Council agenda for tonight did not list an Executive Session. It seems that once Otis and friends got exposed for constantly meeting in secret, and doing the City’s business in secret, they have been doing their best to give the appearance that they are avoiding these secret meetings.

    That didn’t last. This morning Otis changed tonight’s agenda to include a secret meeting before the regular meeting to discuss personnel matters.

    I guess Otis and friends still want to, or even worse they feel they have to, do the City’s business in secret.

  14. Hey, Jack-A, Mr. Floatie, and Don’t re-elect –

    Don’t know if you heard the news, but the Rye Bar and Grille is giving away free bottles of Night Train tonight during the meeting. Join me, and I’ll buy each of you a bottle!

  15. At last nights Rye City Council meeting Mr. Schubert brought the invoice he received for the costs associated with Shew sending the Crisis Team to his house.

    As you can see Scott Pickup calls Shew’s act compassionate. Last night Otis said Shew acted on his own when he called the Crisis Team on Mr. Schubert. I guess that means Shew is responsible for Mr. Schubert’s medical costs.

    These are some postings from MyRye on February 23, 2009:

    Question – Who pays for the psychological exam given to Mr. Schubert?

    Mr. Schubert?
    Paul Shrew – private citizen?
    Paul Shrew – Rye City Manager?

    If it is the City Manager then the Rye taxpayers will pay. Is Paul Shrew legally allowed to obligate the City of Rye to commit to pay such an expense?

    Posted by: Shrew Tactics | February 23, 2009 at 01:42 PM

    We all pay for the Westchester County Crisis Team that Shew apparently abused for his own motives.

    What if that Crisis Team, which was not needed at Mr. Schubert’s house, was needed somewhere else? Someone could have paid for Shew’s personal attack on Mr. Schubert with their life.

    Shew wanted to discredit Mr. Schubert. We now learn that the reason Shew wanted to do this was Shew and possibly others were involved in a coverup. I believe Shew should be investigated criminally.

    Posted by: The Wry Record | February 23, 2009 at 02:16 PM

    Dear Mr. Chittenden/AKA Wry Record:

    A compassionate act that was instituted in privacy and required permission from the referred party is not a criminal act.


    Posted by: Scott Pickup | February 23, 2009 at 04:16 PM

    Mr. Schubert never gave Shew permission to call the Crisis Team.

    Once Shew made the call and then the Crisis Team called Mr. Schubert, Mr. Schubert had already been violated and intimidated. Mr. Schubert possibly felt if Shew could do this, what else could Shew be capable of if he didn’t give permission.

    Shew’s intent for making the call to the Crisis Team and how it relates to what is now being reported as a coverup of the facts by Shew surrounding the very person he called the Crisis Team on, seems to me could very well be the subject of a criminal investigation.

    Posted by: The Wry Record | February 23, 2009 at 05:06 PM

    Dear Mr. Pick-up,
    If you truly believe that Mr. Schubert’s referral to the Medical Center Crisis team was an act of compassion, then you must truly believe that there are no problems with sewage, building and health issues plaguing Hen Island. As to the required permission, it is my experience ( FYI, I worked in the medical center as a psychiatric attendant during college) that if Mr. Schubert didn’t give them permission to enter his home; the crisis team would have knocked on the door with a subpoena in hand. It is also protocol if eminent danger exists to call the police or paramedics who in return after evaluation of the situation would call the appropriate agency. Why didn’t Mr. Shew call the police? Maybe they would have thought Mr. Shew was mentally challenged for calling, after they spoke to and interviewed Mr. Schubert? Additionally, If Mr. Shew was really concerned about Mr. Schubert mental or physical state, why didn’t he call Mrs. Schubert? Remember Mr. Shew was the person that made questionable remarks about their age difference. I would like to believe that as Chantal followed directions for fear of losing her job, you were following direction with regard to statements you issued about Hen Island for the same reasons. I find that hard to do when you make such statements defending those with red hands. I am hoping that it is all being done under the clothe of true innocent denial and that you are one of the few that don’t have a hand in either one of these cover-ups.

    Posted by: Ray Tartaglione | February 23, 2009 at 06:24 PM

  16. Let’s not forget this “: act of compassion” was done by the man (O Paul Shew) that knew the truth (Chantal’s statement that “the city made a mistake and Shew was concerned about a future lawsuit”) about Schubert’s Pond. If he really wanted to help Mr. Schubert he could have said “Bob we made a mistake” instead he said to the Crisis Team “I think he is crazy”. He was willing to have Mr. Schubert committed to a hospital in order to cover-up his lies. Let’s have a parade for Mr. Shew. Maybe we can get the mayor along with the rest of the Shew supporters to drive the lead car with the top down so we can throw eggs and tomatoes at them. This situation is very embarrassing for all of us in Rye.

  17. Noticed many elderly at the city council meeting last week. I assume they were Mr. Schubert supporters and also Mr. Sack supporters. I also went over to healtheharbor.com and noticed the 4 or 5 cottages on Hen Island that are regularly featured in the photos of Hen Island. I’ve had the priviledge of visiting Hen Island and can say the average age of the owners of those cottages is mid-seventies. Does this mean anything? You can draw your own conclusions. Jay Sears continues to provide the media conduit that facilitates personal agendas.

    “He who is without sin may cast the first stone”

  18. Could Jay Sears, Clueless Joe Sack and Mr. Flotie be Rye’s Axis of Evil? Well, we’ll have to make an exception for Mr. Flotie because he isn’t a Rye Resident and doesn’t pay any taxes to Rye.

  19. Dear Notice the elderly,
    More rhetoric about age to suite your agenda. Here is a list of twenty of the thirty four cottage owners on Hen Island as you can see, no one is trying to take advantage of the elderly here except for Mr. Shew.

    Ray Tartaglione 50 ish
    Doug Austrian 40 ish
    Jayson Anderson 30 ish
    Mark Sternberg 30 ish
    John Stensque 30 ish
    Ron Kahl 40 ish
    Gary Ederer 40 ish
    Steve Candenhead 40 ish
    John Mastraveto 40 ish
    _____ Molloy 50 ish??
    Claudio Iodice early 60’s
    ____ Decaro 40 ish
    Chip Archibald 30 ish
    Red Phol 30 ish
    Jay Whelen 30 ish
    David Hutto 50 ish
    Larry Hasbrouk 50 ish
    Robert Meyer 40 ish
    David Southerd 40 ish
    Ned Vickers 40 ish

  20. I’d love to see the city council put this to the voters in a referendum – “Should the city of Rye declare Hen Island a no habitation zone and eliminate all structures to eliminate the possibility of contamination to the Sound?”

    I think it would pass in a heartbeat, and we wouldn’t have to listen to any more from Ray.

  21. I have a vested interest in the Mr. Schubert case. I, like Mr. Schubert’s neighbor, have a drywell that is on it’s last leg. I would love to forgo the price of repair and just divert my gutters on to my neighbor’s property and let him worry about it. I would gladly allow my neighbor to exercise his riparian rights.

  22. From The Rye Record: http://www.ryerecord.com/html%20pages/homeschubert.htm as well as viaThe Journal News, too: http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903120473

    It will be interesting to see what happens next and what the outcome is.

    The Journal News does not get into our former Mayor of Rye John Carey’s comments, but I am struck by what The Rye Record has quoted him as writing in their article:

    Meanwhile, John Carey who at the last Council meeting offered to help the City with an independent investigation of the matter, has written a four-page memorandum to the Council which concludes “that the City will not get to the bottom of this matter without further analysis of sections of the City Code, as well as factual investigation including of allegations in the memo of the former City Naturalist dated February 19, 2009.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here