Orange County Executive Candidate, Mike Sussman, Speaks on South Blooming Grove

In an exclusive interview, Orange County Executive candidate Michael Sussman, speaks on issues involving Southern Orange County, including South Blooming Grove's continued illegal behavior.

The Finley is a listener-supported podcast produced by The Monroe Gazette. It covers State politics and local news across Orange County. If you’d like to support the show, all you gotta do is become a subscriber to The Monroe Gazette.

This was a longer episode than usual for The Finley, so I skipped the introduction and went right into our interview with Mr. Sussman. You can subscribe to The Finley, where all good podcasts are found. The following transcript was lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

The video below is Mr. Sussman’s presentation in Newburgh, where he lays out many of the challenges faced by Orange County residents and how he plans to address them. We believe it is worth your time to watch it:

BJ Mendelson: Hello everyone, welcome to The Monroe Gazette interview with Mr. Michael Sussman, who is running for county executive on the Democratic Party line.

And you’re also Working Families, is that right?

Michael Sussman: Yes it is.

BJ: And that’s always the line I tell people to vote on. It’s a huge help to the party if you do that. And that’s if you are upset with the Democrats for whatever reason or many of the reasons that I am, then Working Families is the line to vote on. Just a quick disclaimer that I did vote for Mr. Sussman. And we did extend an opportunity to Mr. Steve Neuhaus to also be interviewed. So, if he takes us up on it, we will do our best to make that happen.

Okay. Mr. Sussman, there are a ton of things that want to ask you, and I’m just going to set a timer because I don’t think we’re going to get to all of them. Because I don’t want soundbites. I say this to every guest that we have. I would much rather we spend time being substantial about some of these issues. And so I figured we would start with an easy one, which is Woodbury.

And so there’s a situation, Woodbury, where you’ve got a MAGA candidate. And when I say MAGA, I don’t mean someone who voted for Trump. Because I think there’s a difference between people who voted for Trump and MAGA. When I say MAGA, I mean like that 30% of people that, if you told them to repeat January 6th they would, right? Like that’s what I mean when I say MAGA.

So we have an out and out MAGA candidate in Brandon Calore in Woodbury, and we have multiple Democrats in Woodbury that are out there supporting and campaigning for him. I find this deeply troubling, given the situation that’s happening with I.C.E. nationally and some of the other things that Trump is doing. And so I just figured we could start there in terms of your thoughts on the three Woodbury Democrats in particular, David Yoffe, Matthew Fabro, and James Freiband promoting a MAGA candidate, Brandon Calore.

Michael Sussman: Well, let me start by saying I don’t know the gentleman in question. Personally, I don’t know Mr. Calore. I’ve never, as far as I know, met or spoken with him. I do know to some extent the three Democrats you’re referring to. And I don’t know any of them particularly well, but I know all of them some. I would not recommend, and would not personally be campaigning with, or requesting support from anyone who does not recognize the perils to our democracy.

Simply put, one of the reasons I’m running for this position is because I believe our county needs an advocate who can stand up to the extraordinary excesses of a king-like president.

I’ve sponsored the two rallies in Goshen in both June and last week and spoke extensively at both about my views, which are well known. Local politics presents people with all sorts of challenges.

BJ: Sure, of course.

Michael Sussman: And I have seen that all through the county, frankly, and it’s a rather tumultuous problem. It’s not one I can, as a king, dictate. I can’t tell people what they should do to respond to specific political issues and alliances in their own communities. And I think, frankly, it’s somewhat arrogant of me to try to do that. There was an instance in Monroe when I did try to get everyone behind Maureen Richardson, who as a councilwoman I’ve tried to assist and who is running for Supervisor. I saw developing some sort of resistance. I felt it was important to try to bring the people together and speak to them about my views as to her capabilities. I found that frankly, it didn’t work. As you know a primary was held.

BJ: Right. Yes.

Michael Sussman: She succeeded in decisively defeating her opponents. I felt and I said that I felt it was distracting. But it’s not up to me. It’s not my decision. So, you know, I personally have the support of Ken Jones. At one point in time, Ken Jones was allegedly going to meetings of the Proud Boys. This is going back to the beginning of that group. He and his group of friends stopped going.

This is what he has said publicly, and I have no reason to disbelieve him because he saw the direction that the group was going. A very racist, xenophobic, homophobic direction, which he does not support. So, you know, I don’t want to pass judgment on people I don’t know at all. I’ve never met this person [Calore]. I’ve never spoken with him. I don’t really know his politics. Taking your representation, I would have a very difficult time aligning with such a person in any race.

But I, you know, I can’t tell other Democrats you can’t do it.

BJ: Right.

Michael Sussman: They can do it. You can’t tell them they can’t do it either. You can tell them, but you can’t control them. So is it something that deserves mention? Sure. But I, you know, the other part of it, I don’t know what their opponents are doing. Are their opponents also cuddling up to the same person? I don’t know. If they are, then it doesn’t really distinguish them one way or the other.

In a county where Democrats have an overwhelming statistical advantage to Republicans by 18,500 voters. We have a county which recently has seen Mr. Skoufis, Mr. Ryan, succeed at getting a majority of votes in their respective districts. But in 15 elections, Republicans have won the county executive race. And in many elections, Democrats don’t run at all. I did a study of the 19, of the 2024 election, and 74 % of the races were uncontested. So, you know, these are complex subjects. I certainly have my own values and try to operationalize them, but, you know, and I’m not trying to dodge the question. I personally would not be working with that person if what you say about him or her is true.

On the other hand, I can’t tell these people what to do.

BJ: Yeah, and I appreciate that because I … As you know, and I’m not gonna name names, but certainly on the Democratic side there there was at least one individual who wanted to be king and tell people exactly what to do and what to run for, and that person lost decisively in Monroe. [Reader note: That person was James G. Skoufis.]

I’m glad, this is why I wanted to talk to you, because I felt like we could have a substantial discussion about situations like this. Now, let me move.

Michael Sussman: Absolutely. Now you know, there’s one thing I want to say, though, not exactly in defense of this person [Skoufis] you’re referencing, but just in general. I think political leadership does involve attempting to cultivate others. Certainly, at my age, I see my role as one of a midwife as much as anything else. You know, you’re 40 years younger than I am, probably, or close to it. And part of my role is to assist and mentor others. And to the extent that this person [Skoufis] you’re referring to feels he’s trying to play that role with younger individuals or others, I don’t find that inherently inappropriate.

What I find inappropriate, and I want to be very clear about this, I don’t think that personalities should be the dominant force in our political life. I don’t agree with that. I think that ideology, commitment to ideals, fighting for ideals, a track record of those sorts, mostly matters.

Matters of personality. You could love me, you could hate me, you could think this, you could think that. You know, I don’t view that as the litmus test. And I felt in the situation we spoke about earlier in Monroe, that focus on the issues. What is the candidate who’s running for supervisor? What does she stand for? What are your problems with what she stands for? What are your priorities? What are her priorities? Can we have that conversation?

BJ: Yeah, absolutely.

Michael Sussman: … Rather than a conversation about attributing things to each other, both sides, attributing this or that, or the next, and getting down into the gutter? I don’t see that as generally helpful. So this is a division. I think there are plenty of people who think about politics as a popularity contest, as you know, who’s more affable, who’s more this, who’s more that. I understand that being able to cultivate personal relationships that are constructive is an important part of political life. It is. You have to be able to talk with people, whether you agree or disagree, you have to be able to put aside some kinds of differences and work together. That’s a little bit different. And if someone can’t do that very well, maybe it’s disqualifying.

I found in Monroe, quite honestly, and I’ve gone to several of the recent meetings, as you know, because I’ve seen you with those meetings …

BJ: Yes. In character, yes. You’ve seen me in character, yes.

Michael Sussman: … You know, there’s a climate there which is horrendous. And I don’t think Ms. Richardson is responsible for that climate. I think she’s responding to it. And how you respond to a persecutory climate is, a variable, people are different. Some people succumb to it, some people fight back aggressively and, you know, maybe exacerbating the problem. Other people find a way through it. You know, this is a young person. I mean, she’s a young woman. I don’t, I think she is trying very hard to represent a perspective in her community. And what I heard the other day was 40 minutes of a filibuster or a campaign speech. You know, somebody saying they’re presenting a budget.

They’re not presenting a budget. They’re trying to justify their existence. And I don’t think that’s an appropriate use of the captive audience. I had an event last night. I invited people to a revelation day, but I told them what it was. You’re coming to hear me speak about Mr. Newhouse and his record. If you don’t want to be there, you’re not there. I’m not telling you I’m presenting the next Orange County budget and then attacking my opponent implicitly for 35 or 40 minutes. So, you know, and then you... How much time do I have to rebut you? Well, that’s one response. And I can understand why someone would feel that way, because they’re feeling the positions they’ve taken are being responded to by the incumbent, and they have no chance to respond to whatever the audience is.

BJ: I was going to try to do a quick tour of the Southern Orange County towns with you. And so I think, we’ve touched on Monroe, but I just want to quickly touch on the situation with the sheriff,. Because the audience that I’ve seen, and just for people … most people get what I do, they get that [BJ Mendelson] is a poor man’s Hunter S. Thompson. But for people who don’t, it’s a character. BJ Mendelson is a character.

So I was certainly there in character, and what I saw and what Mr. Sussman saw in the two town board meetings was probably the largest crowd that I have seen at a town of Monroe meeting going back to the United Monroe days. So people are very invested in the situation involving I.C.E. and the situation involving the county sheriff. And I was hoping you could speak a little bit to that.

Michael Sussman: Well, let’s start with this contract that’s being proposed. I don’t know what happened, if it was voted on or wasn’t, because I had another meeting in and filibuster that took the hour I had to devote to Monroe. I thought I would speak, but there was no chance for anybody to speak between seven and eight o’clock because he [Cardone] spoke, one person spoke between seven and eight o’clock. Look, the contract being proposed for $750,000 if you read the contract, which wasn’t made public. I received the contract. It’s a one and a half page document. It’s signed on September 12th, 2025 by Mr. Artena, which means that for approximately six weeks, five and a half weeks before this meeting, it existed. It was a document that was there and available. Why isn’t the document being shared with the community?

This is the contract we’re proposing for the sheriff’s department. Or even if you don’t want to use the word proposing, we’re considering. And everyone can read it and comment on it. Now, I was intending to do that that night because the document is really a joke, honestly, from a lawyer’s point of view. I’m not talking about who should be aligned with it. But if that document came to me as a village or town attorney, I would have thrown it in the garbage. And why? Well, it basically says, number one, that the sheriff has the discretion to assign or not to assign two individuals to the town. That’s solely within his discretion. Well, if you want policing, you can’t have it solely within your discretion, whether you’re going to get it. We’re either providing the two people or we’re not. It can’t be every day. It’s a new decision. Maybe we will. Maybe we won’t. That’s what’s in that agreement. Number two, the county has insurance. The sheriff’s department has insurance. They want to hold harmless provision from Monroe that whatever their agents do, Monroe’s can be responsible for? That’s ludicrous. On its face, it’s ridiculous. Okay? It’s just not, it doesn’t get me anywhere. So right away, it’s illusory because it doesn’t promise we’re going to actually be providing the people. We may or may not.

And number two, if they do something wrong, it’s your responsibility. No, it’s not. It’s the sheriff’s responsibility. Number three, there’s absolutely no supervision. Let me be clear about this. As a constitutional lawyer, as a lawyer who’s done many, many, many cases, more than anyone in this county, more than everyone in the county probably combined, about police agencies. The primary reason that towns or municipalities are held responsible for the abuse by individual police officers is that they don’t have proper training and they don’t have proper Supervision.

This document provides for no supervision. So you can have two people running around. Who’s their supervisor? And you’re the one supposed to be liable for the fact that they don’t have supervision in a command structure that’s written into your agreement and you haven’t insisted on it.

Here is the point though, you’re the Monroe supervisor. You’ve not insisted on a document which promotes and provides supervision. Wrong. It’s just wrong. So again, I didn’t have a chance to speak that night. had a meeting, other meetings I had to go to. I’m in middle of the campaign. I would love to devote more time to each community and I will, but that night I had other commitments. And so that’s the first thing. Now the second thing is about ICE. First of all, this issue with ICE and cooperation with federal authorities and immigration is not new. I want everyone who’s listening to this to understand this is not new.

1999 and 2000, when this jail was first being planned, I argued that we should have a 400-person jail. Why? Because if you looked at the criminology statistics in Orange County, they could not justify more than a jail of that magnitude. We did not have a need for an 800-person or 900-person jail. I felt it was excessive. And the argument then was, we’re going to help federal authorities with immigration. We are going to create a profit center. So just so everybody’s listening, this is not new. This is 25, to 28-year-old, this discussion in this county. And one party …

Both parties have been consistent. From my point of view, if I’m the Democrat, I’ve been entirely consistent. I don’t want to see us creating a federal facility here. The federal government wants a facility. They have the capacity to create it. Budget it through Congress, go through our local representatives. If they want a federal holding facility in Orange County, that’s one thing. I might oppose it. I might not, but that’s not the issue. The issue is they want to use a local jail, a county jail for that.

Now that’s a problem, legally. Why? We could be detaining people who’ve been illegally seized. And we know that’s happening because we have asylum seekers who under the law have a date, and I represent individuals in this capacity, they have a date. They’re supposed to be coming to the immigration court in New York City. And before their date, they’re being seized. They’re legally here. That’s the law.

They’re legally here. Now they haven’t gotten permanent status. No one’s arguing about that. But they are legally here with an asylum date. And the reason they’re here is because they came to this country claiming that they had a case which falls within our asylum-granting provisions, which are subject to congressional review and judicial oversight, as everyone knows. So before they can get there, they’re being picked up. That’s wrong. Now we are holding them.

Somebody could sue Orange County and say, what the hell are you holding these people for?

BJ: Right.

Sussman: Okay, we have a legal liability. So from my point of view, morally it’s bankrupt, legally it’s bankrupt. It’s a matter of policy. I don’t want any part of it. And we have a $200 million budget surplus. So who can justify taking the risk to do that because we need the money? We don’t need the money. I mean, I wouldn’t do it if we quote needed the money, but we don’t need the money.

So on all levels, this whole situation has been not analyzed. You look, I’ve talked about the Monroe meetings. Go to the legislative meetings in Goshen, where there should be robust debate about exactly what we’re talking about right now. And someone should be saying, in essence, from my point of view, what I’m saying right now, not a member of the audience who has three minutes to speak. This should be a robust debate. What the hell are we doing? How can we be complicit in this? How do we know that we’re getting people for detention who are being rightfully detained? There are no judicial warrants in half the cases, et cetera.

It’s not being debated. Why not? Where’s the county executive? Who is looking out for the taxpayers of our county, frankly? Because people will be sued. This is going to certainly happen. And detaining someone without warrant is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. There’s no question about it. It’s not an open legal issue.

BJ: Right. And let me ask you something. So the interview that we ran before yours is with the Legal Aid Society. And they discussed a lot of the issues at OCJ. There was a hunger strike a few years ago that the New York Civil Liberties Union had brought to everyone’s attention. Even today, they’re having trouble with their communication system, where it’s apparently very old, out of date, and the lawyers are not able to speak to their clients, and their clients are not getting basic needs.

Is that something that the county executive addresses or is that something the sheriff’s department addresses?

Michael Sussman: I’m addressing everything. I have a budget. These people are all under the budget. These departments are all under the budget. The sheriff is independently elected. We know that. The district attorney is independently elected. But I’ll tell you right now, if they’re not functional, they’re not getting any money. I mean, I’m not going to be supporting unconstitutional practices, abusive practices, practices that violate people’s rights. Our taxpayers are not going to be doing that. It’s really very simple. And I’m a constitutional lawyer. It’s my 48th year of practice. I’m a Harvard Law School graduate with honors. I’m not going to be putting my reputation on the line to support anything and anyone who can’t follow the Constitution. I’m telling you that right now. And if there’s a county voter, you don’t want to hear that. You’ll vote for Steve Neuhouse because he has plenty of experience doing the opposite. OK? And I’m not interested in it. So you know.

I can’t talk yet about what’s there, because I’m not there. Again, I don’t want to act like I know that it’s happening. But if it’s happening, it’s not going to continue. Look, inmates have certain basic rights. One of those rights is to communicate with counsel. It’s very simple. They have a right to communicate with their lawyers. Because how can we have a legal system if they don’t?

And how can we have a legal system if that can be discretionary? It’s not really discretionary. They have that right. Now, obviously, if they want to exercise the right at 330 in the morning, maybe they can’t do that. OK, we get it. Common sense does apply. But you can’t forbid it. You can’t burden someone. You can’t penalize someone. If there are problems with communication that are had, I will intervene and make sure they’re solved. It’s that simple. I don’t know that for a fact. I’ve gone to the facility. I’ve been able to see my clients at the facility. So I don’t know what’s being referenced directly, but it won’t continue if it exists.

BJ: So, Chester, continuing on our tour of Southern Orange County. There’s an agreement in place with the Sugarloaf Performing Arts Center. The county is going to take it over. I’m just curious about what your position on that is and if you have any idea of how it would be utilized.

Michael Sussman: Well, let me say this. I have a great historic relationship with the facility. I supported it when I was on the Chester Town Board and it was built in the early 1990s by Richard Logathitis and his wife, Susan. The facility, from my perspective, has never been fully utilized in the way it could be. My wife is a master electrician and lighting designer, who is one of the first women in America to light rock and roll. She knows theaters inside and out.

I have a son who works at Scenic Hudson in the same field. My wife was on the advisory committee to Mr. Holdridge [ Chester Supervisor] to figure out how to use the facility. And as that committee was functioning, all of a sudden this came down. So the facility was supposedly being studied. What are we doing? How are we charging people? What are we going to do with it? How are we going to upgrade it? And all of a sudden, literally while that committee was in its first year of operation, Mr. Neuhouse came in to buy the theater. He wants to buy the theater. He doesn’t want to provide assistance to people who have great flooding problems in Highland Falls and Cornwall, but he wants to buy a theater.

He wants to buy a theater, but in his state of the state, state of the county address in March, there was a big headline, not one penny for assisted housing or affordable housing from the county. So I don’t know what those priorities are. They’re not my priorities. I love culture. I always say we can never have too much art. We can never have too much music. We can never have too much beauty. I’ll be singing tonight, karoke, where I’ve been singing for eight and a half years at the Cancun Inn. I believe in that. On the other hand, maybe they need assistance over in Chester to help them. If they needed assistance, I would have tried to provide assistance in a measured way. Does the county need to be running the theater? No, it doesn’t need to be running the theater. Does it need to be owning the theater? No, it doesn’t need to be owning the theater. Does Chester need assistance? As I said, it may. And that may be animating what’s leading officials in Chester to want the county to buy the theater and take this albatross off of them.

But remember, Chester, and I live in Chester, we bought the theater by approximately 65%, 70% vote just a few years ago. Our people knew there would be expenses involved and we bought it. So I’m not convinced we’ve had enough time to make it operational. My wife, as I just said, has been deeply involved in trying to make that happen with Jeff Zahn and a whole committee of other people.

And I’m not convinced that group had its opportunity to really make it functional. On the other hand, everyone’s very cost-conscious. You have a young supervisor in Chester. He doesn’t want to be burdened with the expense. He doesn’t want to be blamed for tax increases. I get all that. You know, swooping in though, when we have a huge budget surplus, you can afford to do it if you’re the county, but you can’t afford to do it when you’re not meeting more basic human needs. That’s the problem.

No subtle answers, no one line answers. You have a discussion, you know me. I want to have a discussion. I’m not interested in a punch line. I want people to understand the issues and often these issues are complex. There are many sides.

From Chester’s point of view, you know, we can’t afford it. Okay, help us out. Okay, well, let’s figure out ways of doing that, maybe. I have no confidence the county can run the theater, none whatsoever. I know what’s going on at the Orange County Airport. He wants to take over Stewart Airfield?

Go to the Orange County Airport where you’ve had a diminution significantly in the tenants there. The principal tenant, Take Flight Aviation. I represented Take Flight Aviation. I was part of the negotiations. The guy’s office is flooded. He says, I need a new roof. This is no joke. He says, I need a new roof. And when I’m negotiating with the county, they told me it would take three to five years to get him a new roof. The capital budget will allow for a new roof to be built for three to five years hence. And I want to take over Stewart Airfield.

BJ: Right. So let me ask you, just talking about the surplus and the takeovers, I think about Orange County Sewer District 1 and the new sewage plant that’s kind of being rammed through. I don’t know how familiar you are with the situation…

Sussman: I’m very familiar with it. To me, it’s a major issue in the county.

BJ: So if you live within Orange County Sewer District 1, then you are likely to face bills of up to, up to $1,200 a year for the next 30 years. I’ve repeatedly asked Orange County, why isn’t Palm Tree, South Blooming Grove, or Woodbury Common paying more than people that are living in Monroe? Because Monroe is almost entirely built out. And the county’s response has been, specifically about Woodbury Common, is that we “don’t want to adversely target a property owner.” And I’ve asked repeatedly, Woodbury Common, did a stock buyback of $2 billion, I believe it was in 2024.

I will double-check that before I publish this. And if they’ve got $2 billion to spend, then surely they have $187 million to spend, which is what it would cost to build a new sewage plant.

I would just like real quick, talking about Stuart Airfield and the purchase of the Performing Arts Center. Why isn’t Orange County spending more to reduce the cost for people that live in OCSD1?

Michael Sussman: There was no proper environmental review done of this expansion. The county claimed it wasn’t an expansion, although from my understanding, it’s going to increase capacity by 50%. If that’s not what an expansion is, what is it? It’s an expansion. It’s a significant expansion. The expansion will enable significantly increased development in this area that’s covered by it. That should have been studied as part of SEQRA.

Are the roadways in this area sufficient for that kind of expansion, which is going to be enabled by this? I don’t know for sure, but I think it needs to be studied. That’s the purpose of SEQRA. I looked at the SEQRA for that project and it was totally inadequate. Number one. Number two, when I went to the legislative meetings about that, they told the people that it was going to be federally funded in large measure. That’s what I heard.

I knew because I was an attorney, as I still am for the village of Monticello, well we’re building a major water, new water plant, water treatment facility. And I know that these funds are being basically barricaded in Washington. So I said to people at that time in county government, are you sure we’re getting the kind of federal assistance? About $120 million is the number I heard. Are they really coming through with that? Or are we gonna be left with it?

“No, they’re coming through with it. They’re coming through with it.” I don’t believe it for one minute. So to me, this project has to be honestly reviewed. We have to start again. We have to do a proper environmental study. I don’t know how that will come out. But we also have to look, as you’re explaining it, at the finances. Because if it’s not going to be significantly federally funded, then we have to look at the detriment that’s going to arise to these individuals who you’re speaking about, private homeowners and the like.

We have to look at who is benefiting, who isn’t benefiting. We have to look all of these tax, all of these tax levies that we’re speaking about, from the property tax to the sewer tax levies. All of them are regressive. We have to put that right on the table up front. When you ask me as county executive sales tax is regressive. Property tax is regressive. All of these levies are regressive. What does regressive mean? It means that people who are very wealthy pay the same rate as people who are not wealthy and who may be very poor. That’s the truth. That’s a regressive tax. The only tax, and we have a constitutional amendment about it in the United States to create it, that’s not regressive, is an income tax. Why? Because you have differential rates depending on your income. And you can charge people who have greater means, and I have greater means, and I’m not against paying my fair share.

Okay, it’s going to be higher than yours probably, because I make more money than you do, most likely. Although I don’t know, who knows? The point is, if it be true, that’s fair. So my view of all of these taxes and the way we’re funding government right now is different from other people’s views. I acknowledge that. I don’t believe that we should be so reliant on taxes that are fundamentally regressive. Because here, senior citizens are going to have trouble paying, they’re going to be run out of the community. It’s going to make it harder for young people who already can’t afford to move into these communities and buy houses. It’s going to make it harder for them. So we have to look at this, again, through many prisms. It’s a complex issue.

BJ: And so the last section here is about South Blooming Grove. There’s a lot of different things we can talk about with South Blooming Grove. I saw your presentation. I’m actually going to post it with this interview so people can watch it. So I think you spoke really well about the cigars on the mountain and Gonzaga Park and the Mangin Bypass, which has been the brainchild of Joel Stern and Isaac Ekstein since the beginning …

Michael Sussman: Not only them. Let’s be very clear. If they’re to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt their veracity on the subject, Steve Neuhouse was involved in planning this from the summer of 22. That’s the testimony. were presented to him on October 7th. He went to view it on October 12th. By then, according to the maps that the county itself attached to its complaint, as of September of 22, that Gonzaga area had already been deforested. That’s what their own maps and the footnote, if you read their brief, say. So for them to now say, we first found out about this on December 5th, which is what they also say is a lie. To me, it’s a disqualifying lie. Don’t seek public service if you’re going to lie. The same kind of lie that “Michael Sussman was being pursued by some state authority about not paying health insurance.” It’s a bunch of nonsense. It never happened. The Albany Times Union today, that’s what I read. When, where, who? Anyway, go ahead, South Blooming Bay.

BJ: No, I look, no, I understand with, ⁓ as you know, with Steve Neuhouse, he doesn’t answer FOIL requests. He always says that there’s no records to be found. He often tells tall tales. I saw you used our example of him claiming that there was a man apprehended at the border who had enough fentanyl on him to kill everyone in New York City. And then there was the other one during the drone scare that we had where he claimed he had top secret security clearance and he wrote to his friends at the Pentagon. We FOIL for those documents and then they said, they don’t exist.

Michael Sussman: I don’t want to be digressing, but a factless world, a factless world is a world where, from my point of view, we’re never going to progress anywhere. We have to have some basic understanding of what’s true. Now, that doesn’t mean you should like it or not like it. That’s a different question.

BJ: I agree.

Michael Sussman … But what happened? Did the people who Mr. Stern and Mr. Ekstein say were prepared to support this project in the deforestation of that park? Is it true? Isn’t it true? He [Stern] names names. I read his deposition. He names names. He says, Steve Neuhouse gave me Tom Scaglione’s phone number and said, it’s with Kathy Hochul. And Kathy Hochul supported it. And they’ll all support it. And it stopped in February of 23, because the Orange County legislature wouldn’t in fact pass the home rule. The message was required to begin the dedication process. And he has credible evidence in the text messages that I’ve read that support all of that.

I’m just saying I want to know what’s true. As a trial lawyer, want to know what’s true as county executive. I want to know what’s true. What we should do about it’s another thing. Passing judgment about it’s another thing. Let’s get to what happened. Who’s doing what to whom and why? What are your reasons? If you’re all supportive of it.

Eckstein says they’re all supportive of these. He says there’s a lot of accidents on 208 and we need an alternative road.

BJ: Which isn’t true, which isn’t true by the way. It’s not statistically bared out at all. We’ve put in the FOIL requests for that. is no, he [Stern] has repeatedly, if you look at the FOILs we have to Department of Transportation, they have repeatedly claimed that there’s this sudden spike of accidents with no evidence to support it.

There’s really two things that I wanted to hit on. And just for the record, Kathy Hochul office is also obstructing FOIL requests concerning this case and Mr. Stern and Mr. Ekstein, so.

So there’s really two things I want to hit on. The first is the hydrogen sulfide issue in the village of Monroe, which is directly caused by overdevelopment in South Blooming Grove. As you know, there was a quid pro quo, which is essentially, they bonded, it’s about $400,000 for something called ANUE WATER TECHNOLOGIES that would solve the problem. But Joel Stern and Isaac Eckstein in a recording, said we are not going to turn on the system unless Orange County drops its lawsuit and lets us build our road.

And as far as I’ve been told, that’s legal. And so I want to talk to you as someone running for county executive, is that legal? And if it is, what can the village of Monroe even do about that?

Michael Sussman: Well, if my residents are being deleteriously affected by something someone else is doing, and they are effectively creating a nuisance. And I went with Miss Richardson and over there, and I stood there in that park, which I took my children to 30, 35 years ago. OK, I know the park. It stunk to high hell. It stunk. OK, It was wafting. It wasn’t every minute. when it was on, it was really on.

So number one, there’s a real issue. Number two, there’s a solution to the issue. Number three, there are people obstructing the solution to the issue. And number four, there’s no one who’s essentially intervening to block their obstruction. That’s how I analyze this problem. OK? So one of two things happen. Either those who are obstructing bend down and say, okay, we’re stopping, or someone brings an action against them to compel them to do what they need to do to help solve a problem, which is affecting others. It’s not just affecting them. In their own community, I mean, when I’ve gone to SBG meetings a few years ago, what did I see in the meetings? People with bottles of water, people complaining about their water coloration, people complaining and complaining. That was a number of years ago. So again, until you’re there and I’m not there yet, I can’t tell you every dynamic. But what I can tell you is that my orientation is to solve the problem. My orientation is to say to people, wait a minute, and if I can’t get somewhere through honey, there are other ways of proceeding. And I know how to do it as a litigator.

BJ: So let me find, I’m gonna try to find a way into this question, which is we started the conversation talking about the Woodbury Democrats, one of them, Matthew Fabro. His mother, Rhonda Fabbro, insists that if you question South Blooming Grove, you’re anti-Semitic. I asked Mr. Fabro at last night’s village board meeting if he agreed. He claimed that Mr. Skoufis is not anti-Semitic, but that the other agencies investigating South Blooming Grove, which include the EPA, the DOH, the Orange County DOH, the FBI who still has an open voter fraud investigation going, that they might be anti-Semitic.

So before I get to this last question, just, is it anti-Semitic to question South Blooming Grove? Or let me be more specific, to question the actions of Joel Stern and Isaac Exehan specifically.

Michael Sussman: Everyone who is in public office, whether they’re elected, appointed, or self-appointed, is subject to both ethical standards, standards of accountability, as well, obviously, as legal principles and standards. So I don’t really understand even the question. Everyone in public office, I don’t care if they’re in South Blooming Grove, in Palm Tree, in Pine Island. I don’t … They are all subject to the same, as you’ve talked in this conversation a number of times about Freedom of Information Act requests. They’re all subject to the same municipal law, general municipal law, town law, village law. So I don’t really understand the question. If you have questions about what’s going on, someone reported yesterday to me, I think you know who it is, that there are issues with an election in South Blooming Grove. Was it a proper election? Wasn’t the proper election? Was it properly noticed?

I mean, to ask that question can’t be anti-Semitic or anti-black or anti-anybody. It’s a question about the legitimacy of the governmental function, which is a fundamental question.

So if the issue is, are you paying more attention to certain communities than others because of the religion or race or anything of their office holders, it could be a legitimate question. However, I mean, I personally, that’s not how I view things. I view things as, does someone have a complaint? What is the complaint? And does a complaint have legs? Well, it doesn’t, wherever it’s coming from, and frankly, whoever it’s by. The other thing I want to say to your listeners is I have had a very long history, which you haven’t pointed out, but a history that’s well written and documented, in advocating for the dissident community when it existed as a dissident community in Kiryas Joel.

That goes back to 1988, 89, that timeframe. So it’s more than 35 years. I know many of these people personally. I’ve worked with them in some sense for them, depending on who they are, over many years. However, in 2001, when I was running first for county executive 24 years ago, and the dissident strongly supported me and we had a big event at Williamsburg at the Navy Yard; and they carried me around like I was going to be married to someone, which I was already married. And then I got to speak. I said the following, “thank you. And the only thing I can promise you is a seat at the table.” And that’s exactly how I view things today. You, because you’re of a group or not in that group, doesn’t give you any special privileges. You have a seat at the table and the table is constructed long enough for everyone to have a seat.

But everything’s got to be discussed there with the stakeholders, honestly. And that’s going to involve neighboring communities. It’s going to involve civic organizations that have an interest in this. It’s going to involve individuals who are prominent, who have an interest. And we have to sit down and face the issues and have a conversation. I don’t want that to be in private.

I want that to be in a public setting so people can know what the interests are and how we’re going to try to reconcile them. You’d be an idiot if you didn’t understand that we have competing interests. They’re always competing interests. The question is how are those competing interests going to be, I use the word reconciled, brought together in some resolution, understanding that when you resolve a problem, it doesn’t go away forever. Another problem develops, another problem develops. I love the idea of problem-solving.

But it’s a little bit, it’s a little bit oxymoronic and moronic because that’s not the world we’re in. The world we’re in is there always going to be problems. We don’t finish solving the problem. But that’s an orientation that I have and that orientation is one which invites the maximum number of voices to the conversation. I have to use my intellectual abilities to try to come to syntheses that I can try to sell and work.

But I’m not the only one in the room who has a brain. Other people have to try to do the same thing. We have to try to come to resolutions that are as, A, democratically framed, but also as mutually beneficial as possible. I’m not interested in setting one group against the other. Satmar Jews have a right to live in Orange County, 100%.

BJ: Yes. Absolutely, absolutely right.

Michael Sussman: Anyone who doesn’t believe that, they can come to the table, but they’re not going to get very far.

Other people have a right to live in the county. Everybody has a right to water. Everybody has a right to a kind of life that they came here for. And to the extent you want to intrude on that, well, it’s going to be a problem. And we have to figure out how those intrusions can be managed. We understand one group has a population growth of eight times the others. Well, that’s reality. We’re not in China. We can’t say to them, you can’t have children. They can have children.

But them having children, to the extent they do, is going to create externalities for others that have to be figured out. So these are the realities. We have to face the realities. We can’t act like they don’t exist or they’re going to go away. They’re not going away.

BJ: Yes. And so that’s, that’s perfectly where I want to ask you. So the Orange County Department of Health, since about 2022, has sent a letter to South Blooming Grove saying, “hey, we’re really concerned about you trucking in water. Hey, we’re really concerned about the amount of building. If you don’t stop doing it, we’re going to have to fine you.” Finally, this year is the first time that I’ve actually seen them say, we’re going to fine you.

But the other hand is that South Boone Grove has spent millions of dollars trucking in water. There’s very little to no supervision of how that process is being done, how it’s being paid for. And the thing I get constantly from South Boone Grove residents, whether it’s about the water, whether it’s about the second garbage pickup, whether it’s about the lack of elections, right? Whether it’s about the sewage issue, the on and on and on. New York State does not seem interested in helping them.

I can say that because I, you know, when I talked to the Department of State about the elections, they basically shrugged their shoulders and say, you should sue and find out. That was their response. And so...

Michael Sussman : I intend to be responsive to the issues raised by people all over the county, whether they be in South Blooming Grove, whether they be in Deer Park, whether they be in Mount Hope. And the issues you’re raising are quality of life issues that go to the heart of a community.

Every one of those issues, they have to be dealt with. To the extent there’s an interface with the county, they will be dealt with and they’ll be dealt with with integrity. When you say people aren’t enforcing basic health rules and the county is basically allowing that to go on and taking a kind of laissez-faire approach, not acceptable, no basis for it.

You know, I’m a Hegelian. What that means is that what’s good for you is good for me. If I can’t generalize a principle, then I can’t govern.

I can’t generalize a principle of hands off to a community that’s not doing what it’s supposed to be doing. That doesn’t work. Because once I am hands off there, I’m hands off, period, I might as well go home.

On the other hand, there are rules of law, there are principles, there are regulations that have been developed and that are supposed to be applicable. And that’s why, in Wawayanda, I’m so deeply involved with the warehouses. Because all I see is we’re cutting a corner for this one, we’re cutting a corner for the next one. And this one and that one happen to be major multinational corporations, we can’t cut corners for them and then expect Joe Green to abide by every single rule to the dot.

No.

So this is a whole different approach to government. And the only way I can explain it to you is simple. I’ll be 72 years old in December. I don’t need this for financial reasons or any other reason. I believe that the government can be helpful to people. I genuinely believe that. I believe the cynicism about government is largely occasion by the correct perception the government has been bought and paid for.

And if you have the perception it’s been bought and paid for, then I can understand you’re being disgruntled about it, not participating, not voting. It’s a very rational response. We need to have people in elected office who have and are prepared to utilize a high level of integrity, period, the end. And that means, discrimination is not necessarily a negative thing. Discrimination has to always occur. In life, it always occurs. We’re discriminating this situation from that situation. They’re not the same. We’re trying to make rational judgments. We have to do that. But we have to do it with conscientiousness and not self-interest. And what I see too much of is that self-interest is governing these decisions. And a lot of it is the self-interest of an elected official, whoever he may be, who wants to get ahead. OK.

Well, I have to cater to this, I have to cater to that. I get that. I get it. But you’d be better off, my advice as a midwife is to adhere to your principles. And your principles should be an equality of treatment, not preferential for this group because it has votes or that group or the other thing. It always comes back to haunt you when you start behaving that way. So that’s where I am.

I appreciate a little time with you, and thank you for the questions. I know you only asked a few questions because I talk so much. I apologize for that. But these are complex issues and I don’t want to oversimplify them because the people deserve answers.

And I know some people, you know, look, I have posted a lot on social media. The average looking time is 17 seconds. That’s the world we’re in. People don’t have attention. They don’t have the time. They don’t want to, you know, they don’t want to listen. They know what they know. The answers. I get it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t. You can’t stop trying to put out what you think is factual, accurate, and as comprehensive as the moment allows.