Can't Believe You Fake It.

So here’s another moment from last Thursday night’s Piermont mayoral debate. This one is almost as cringe-worthy as another, different moment - the moment it was made manifest that Kevin Timoney was too clueless to know Piermont already had an Architectural Review Board:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2025/10/piermonts-kevin-timoney-cringe-worthy.html
 
On the other hand, this was the moment when Kevin Timoney channeled the otherwise-inimitable Admiral Stockdale, wafting off into space – or, wafting off into “stace”[sic] as TIMBO might be otherwise inclined to pronounce it:

 

DORIA HILLSMAN

… Mr. Timoney, specifically, what would you do to protect green space?

 

[Daydream].  [Confused pause].

 

KEVIN TIMONEY [in space, a la Admiral Stockdale]]

Oh, is that for me?... Sorry… What was the?… I didn’t… [unintelligible]…

 

DORIA HILLSMAN

What would you do to protect green space?

 

KEVIN TIMONEY [returned to consciousness]

Oh… Thank you.

 
Then Kevin Timoney continued his “response”. Aside from Timoney’s typical word-salad answering-style, Timoney actually admits to - before ever being elected Mayor of Piermont - conferring with the real estate development cluster currently threatening to destroy 447-477 Piermont Avenue. That’s consistent with the discovery that Siltmaster developer Frank DeCarlo and his company “FDC Development” already “friended” Kevin Timoney’s campaign Facebook page. You know -  the page where Timoney currently touts 33 “friends” as of this writing?:

https://www.facebook.com/kevin.piermont.united

 
Worse yet, Timoney’s idea of mayoral power is to “have discussions about getting that fence out” at 447-477 Piermont Avenue? That’s the answer of a human marshmallow. That fence isn’t even to code. The Village had the absolute right to effect its take-down months ago - by force, if necessary. Therefore, welcome to your preview of the Pro-Development Kevin Timoney Namby-Pamby Mayoral Reign.
 
Yet worst of all, on the substance, Kevin Timoney totally misses the point of the initial “green space” question and issue, thereby leaving it to his mayoral-race opponent Nate Mitchell to actually explain to Piermont residents the significance of the “Fee In Lieu Of Parkland” program.
 
Here:
 

KEVIN TIMONEY

Uh… So, green stace[sic]… green space is obviously very important… um[sic]… I think one way is talking with the developers who want to build on these spaces and try to work something out. I think when you go in on 100… um[sic]… you don’t get anything. If you actually have an open conversation with them and a dialogue and see what they’re trying to propose, and you work with them, you can get a little bit more. I’ve actually had conversations with one of the owners who… across the street from Bunbury’s, and they’ve even said that they will contact the developer if I’m elected, prob…[sic]… and we can have discussions about getting that fence out. Because… I want to have there… obviously we c[an’t]…[sic]… it’s not… part of green space, but it is part of having our downtown not be fenced-in… um[sic]… we need to protect our green space. We need to, as we mentioned with the Erie Trail, these are places that we want to… enjoy… um[sic]… and we’ve got to protect it. Thank you.

 

NATE MITCHELL

Well, so fortunately, a lot of our green spaces are actually Village-owned property, and so one of the important things to remember is that we should not be selling off any of our Village property in order to facilitate anything if it comes at the cost of losing some of our important green spaces. And, also, our zoning laws are another important tool in the toolbox for controlling what amount of green space is available. For example, when a subdivision is proposed, the subdivision is required to set aside a certain amount of green space and dedicate it to the Village as parkland. But we have an alternative. We have two “FILOPs” in Piermont... We have Fee In Lieu Of Parking, and Fee In Lieu Of Parkland.

 

And that Fee In Lieu Of Parkland comes into play in the situation where someone comes in with an application for a subdivision. They have the option of either setting aside some green space for us as parkland, or paying us in lieu of it. And one of the things that I was a little bit bummed about was there is a proposal going on right now for the so-called Village Green to build three houses behind our Kennedy Memorial Monument, and we chose to take the money instead of the parkland, in that case. I would prefer that we took the parkland and do that in all subdivision applications. Thank you.

 
Once again, Nate Mitchell has the answer, while Kevin Timoney just fakes one.