.

Meet the Candidates For Mamaroneck Village Trustee: Michael Sudano

Michael Sudano, a Republican party candidate for trustee, answered a Q&A about his future goals for the village should he win the seat.

 

Come November, the presidential election won't be the only one that draws people to the polls.  Closer to home, six candidates—three Democrats and three Republicans—will be vying for three open trustee seats in the Village of Mamaroneck.

In the next few weeks, Larchmont Patch will be running a series of Q&As with the candidates so you, the voters, know where they stand on issues impacting your community.

This week we'll be presenting the Village of Mamaroneck Republican Party candidates. Sudano is running on the Independent and Conservative Party lines.

Michael Sudano

Bio: Sudano is fully aware of the intricacies and benefits of village government from his successful 1997 to 2000 term as a village trustee. Sudano's sense of community and its values are underscored by his career as an educator for over 33 years, including as coordinator of the Apple Program at Mamaroneck High School. Sudano is currently a realtor with Weichert Realty and enjoys his membership in the Kiwanis Club, the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Old Timers Club and as an advisor to the Rye Neck Key and Booster Club.

Larchmont Patch: What are the major issues facing Mamaroneck?

Michael Sudano:

  • Taxes - While we’re living in challenging times, we can’t shy from the responsibilities of ensuring the continued services that we’ve come to expect from living in such a wonderful community. Taxes are high in Mamaroneck and surrounding communities and it is incumbent upon village leadership to maintain its fiscal responsibility to taxpayers.   
  • Flooding - Recent storms in Mamaroneck reminded us of the tremendously challenging problem of flooding in parts of the village. Too many of our neighbors have had to contend with extensive and costly property damage and we must find ways to work with federal and state resources to resolve the problem. Village government has already begun the process of partnering with the Army Corps of Engineers and I will continue to push that process and other resolutions to address what is most certainly a bipartisan problem.    
  • Parking - As a former trustee, I’m proud of the role I’ve played in growing Mamaroneck into the bustling town we now enjoy. People from all over come to Mamaroneck to enjoy our restaurants, our shops and to open small businesses here. With that success has come a shortage of suitable parking. While we’re proud of our village’s growth, we now must think innovatively to continue drawing people to our wonderful business district. We will continue have open dialogue with residents to ensure we add parking capacity while maintaining the village’s inherent beauty.  

Larchmont Patch: As a board member, how would you make the village a better place to live?

Sudano: As a past trustee, I’ve always been proud of the role I’ve played to raise the village to the community we enjoy today.  However, none of us can do it alone.  No one person can make the village a better place to live because we must do it together.  I’ve always enjoyed that our community is called a village, because I believe “village” is the very definition of a group of people who work together towards a common goal.  I’ve always felt that was the best way to elevate a community – together.  

Larchmont Patch: What made you want to run?

Sudano: I’ve always felt a call to service throughout my life, as a past trustee; a member of the Mamaroneck Task Force; as a teacher and coach and by participating in a variety of community and civic organizations.  Now, more than ever, we face great challenges and I am eager to once again serve as your village trustee to make a difference.  

Larchmont Patch: Do you think it’s possible for the village board to become unified on issues?  Do you forsee another contentious year?

Sudano: There are many who cite the relationship between President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Thomas Tip O’Neill as the model for bipartisanship, and with good reason.  Despite vast ideological differences, the two giant personalities were able to set aside differences and accomplish a great deal of work simply by understanding the rule that—in Speaker O’Neill’s words—“We're all friends after 6.”  We have to understand, like Speaker O’Neill and President Reagan, that those we work with on the other side of an issue or ideological belief are as similarly invested in our future and are the same loving mothers and fathers just like anyone else.  Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost sight of that and differences became obstacles.  Anyone who knows me, knows that I believe in the person first—with party affiliation a distant last.

Larchmont Patch: The VOM has a strong business district—how can it become even stronger?

Sudano: We have to balance attracting business with preserving our community. While that balance is difficult to achieve, we can continue to grow intelligently and without affecting the delicate fabric of our wonderful village.  Our focus must continue to be on attracting small business that reflect our community and we must use caution when dealing with larger businesses that distort who we are.  

Mary Too September 26, 2012 at 11:24 AM
. Mr. Sudano's history of community service in Mamaroneck speaks for itself. .
MARY September 26, 2012 at 04:30 PM
WOW!!! Nailed it. He has my vote. Mike was a great trustee last time, will be just as good if not better
Harold R. September 26, 2012 at 07:07 PM
All these candidates sound the same, flooding? Bad!, Services? Good!, Taxes? very bad! Might as well put up a dart board with their names on it! Stefani, No question about the EPA issue for this set of candidates? Mary, if history could actually speak, what would it say of his community service? W hat was in the article wasn't that impressive. I did like him claiming that the blossoming of the Village that started 6 years after he was voted out is because of his service. I lived in the Village when he was trustee. He conveniently forgets that what he really paved the road for was the 6 years of embarrassing and costly lawsuits because of the Village's violating peoples civil rights.
Stefani Kim September 26, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Hi Harold, Yes, I did ask some of the Republican candidates about that; you will see their responses later in the week. I wanted to mix it up a bit and not ask everyone the same exact set of questions. Best, Stefani
Harold R. September 26, 2012 at 09:01 PM
Thanks Stefani I find them very interesting. Of all the local communities VOM politics are the most interesting!
Mary Too September 26, 2012 at 09:45 PM
. Harold, when you say, “He conveniently forgets that what he really paved the road for was (sic) the 6 years of embarrassing and costly lawsuits because of the Village's violating peoples civil rights.", I assume that you are referring to the day laborers case. If so, your statement is simply a fabrication. In her decision, the judge stated, “Since August 2004, and continuing into this past summer, the defendants have engaged in a campaign designed to drive out the Latino day laborers who gather on the streets of Mamaroneck to seek work," the judge said. "The fact that the day laborers were Latinos, and not whites, was, at least in part, a motivating factor in defendants' actions" Michael Sudano left office in 2000, and the alleged activity leading up to the 2006 settlement began in 2004, FOUR YEARS AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE. Please, if you can, explain how Sudano “paved the road for was (sic) the 6 years of embarrassing and costly lawsuits because of the Village's violating peoples civil rights". Keep it honest Harold!
MARY September 26, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Hey Harold Let's just say you were to run for public office in the VOM,what would your platform be? LOL
Harold R. September 27, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Mary, Here is what I was saying, follow along. Mike, (I know and like Mike) in the article claimed credit for "growing Mamaroneck into the bustling town we now enjoy." Something that didn't start for 6-7 years after he was voted out. If he wants to take credit for that he needs to take responsibility for what happened in between. I was actually talking about both the Day School and the Day laborer lawsuits during the dark Trifiletti years that followed Mike's tenure as a Trustee. I am not sure if you want to get into this argument with me Mary, I lived in the Village through those awful years and was paying attention. Both the lawsuits were born out of the same kind of mentality that pervades your current board. The "We can do whatever we want" attitude that eschews reason, ignores facts, and regularly does things have the potential to cost residents dearly. I believe the judge in the day school case said something to the effect that the Village had demonstrated an "arbitrary blindness to the facts". Those years were embarrassing and costly to the Village, millions of dollars in attorney fees, millions for settlements after being found guilty and seemingly every month another news story about the Village violating peoples civil rights. I think Mike said in another interiew that he was honored to have the Mayor ask him to run. Mike is a nice guy and I believe a honorable man, he should be careful not to align himself too closely to the Mayor.
Mary Too September 27, 2012 at 12:44 AM
I have lived in the village for many years BEFORE the events that you have mentioned. I too know Mike, probably longer than you, and I KNOW him to be an honorable man. I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating verifiable facts. Henceforth, I will not be responding to your comments which are laced with "I think", "I believe", "I read" etc. I will, however, comment on anything that you say that is inaccurate, unsubstantiable or confusingly vague.
Harold R. September 27, 2012 at 01:31 AM
Mary, You said "I will, however, comment on anything that you say that is inaccurate, unsubstantiable or confusingly vague." You didn't comment on anything i said, So you agree that everything I have said so far is accurate, substantialble and not vague or confusing, right?
Mary Too September 27, 2012 at 02:57 AM
. Read again! You missed the word HENCEFORTH. Please add to my list of things that I WILL comment on, "quotes made out of context". .
Tom Murphy September 27, 2012 at 03:07 AM
I was on the Board during those lawsuits and I helped settle most of them . I read all the legal briefs and decisions. Mike had absolutely nothing to do with those lawsuits. He was long out of office at that point. I just wanted to set the record straight, this election should be about the future not the past.
Mary Too September 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM
AMEN MR. MURPHY!
MARY September 27, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Mr. Murphy, Thank you for you input on this. and I agree let's move forward on not on the past.
Poor Richard September 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM
It's nice that Mr. Sudano wants to come back to serve the Village.....I hope he will distance himself from the mayor and work to keep the Village out of lawsuits.....Remember this mayor "settled" the MBYC lawsuit.....but they sued us again......how much did that cost the Village?
Mary Too September 27, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Things are getting tough when you have to grasp at straws by bringing up ancient history. Like Tom Murphy said, this election should be about the FUTURE, not the past.
Harold R. September 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Tom, Nice to hear from you, the Village could use you again. Please note that I never said that Mike bore any responsibility for the lawsuits. All I was saying was if he wants to take credit for the blossoming of Mamaroneck 7 years after he was out, he needs to take responsibility for that ugly period in between. It was your years on the board that did the ground work that directly led to the renaissance, it is funny to see every republican now taking credit for it! I am surprised to hear you suggest that the past shouldn't be part of the election. I remember well the campaign when Trifiletti was ousted, that was a campaign all about the past with the rash of lawsuits being the focal point. I supported and worked on that campaign, I remember it well. when I watch your board meetings I see the same kind of high handed, inside dealing atmosphere that took over a decade ago taking place now, I have no reason to believe the outcome will be different. The arrogant and condescending way the board treats residents precludes a honest discussion.
Harold R. September 28, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Do you want to wind up discussing the dictatorial governing style of a former mayor, which resulted in her losing an election by an overwhelming 350 votes? Absolutely Mary! I am happy to have that discussion. I am well aware of the Savolts shortcomings but to compare her to the dictatorial style of this board is a stretch but go ahead, start it off.
Mary Too September 28, 2012 at 04:22 PM
. Harold, as I said in my previous post, the past shouldn’t be an arguing point for the present election. I've made my point. I'll sit back and read your diatribe. Since you are well aware of Savolt's shortcomings, and you can't resist bringing up irrelevant history, I leave it in your hands. In the end (Nov. 6), the most qualified candidates will prevail. Intelligent voters won't be judging them based upon situations in which they had no involvement. . .
Mary Too September 28, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Harold, except for Mike Sudano, who left office TWELVE YEARS AGO, none of the six present candidates has ever held public office. In spite of this fact, you persist in bringing up your perception of political history which has nothing to do with the six present-day candidates. As Tom Murphy has so wisely recommended, you should be looking at the future. I concur that the past shouldn’t be an arguing point for the present election. You are going down a dangerous road if you persist in bringing up the past. Do you want to wind up discussing the dictatorial governing style of a former mayor, which resulted in her losing an election by an overwhelming 350 votes?
Harold R. September 28, 2012 at 07:37 PM
Mary, You are hard to have a discussion with, you seem to just want to throw bombs but not defend your statements. I think everybody agrees that Savolt had a difficult personality for politics but she was a excellent manager and got more positive done for the village in two years than Rosenblum has done in three. Her board hired the only first class building inspector we have had since Ernie Poccia retired. Rosenblum and crew then drove him away Her board adopted the Ethics Law that Rosenblum's board has ignored and disrespected. Her board hired our first full time municipal attorney. Rosenblum and crew fired her and replaced her with and inexperienced party hack as quickly as they could. Savolt, no matter how unpleasant she was, never arbitrarily denied residents their right to speak like Rosenblum does.
Mary Too October 01, 2012 at 05:22 PM
. Mike has lived in the village FOR DECADES. He taught and was loved by many children, lots of whom still live in the village as adults with their own children. His volunteer work with various service organizations and at Rye Neck High School exemplify his commitment to the community. .
Allison October 01, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Based on the historical moves by each of these candidates, I'd have to say the future can look pretty grim for Mamaroneck village. Everyone can talk the political game and win at the popularity contest, but an informed voter (highly lacking there) looks at what each candidate has accomplished to measure what the future will hold. Some of the candidates were on boards. If you want to resolve the "village issues" that seem to me as self created you have to take into account the HISTORICAL, then take the bull by the horns and deal with it. For example: The perceived lack of parking on the avenue. What brought it about? Background is this administration is taking credit for the village vibrancy, when it's actually the property owners and their choice of tenants that brought about this vibrancy. Historically, parking is determined by a certain ratio of seating in a restaurant to parking, which currently many owners/tenants got variances from village law to not supply parking. Going forward, should all taxpayers in the village pay for new parking facilities based on this? There seems to be plenty of underutilized parking for this dilemma, but it seems that those who are complaining over the lack of parking don't want to walk further than the front door of where they are going. Transit Orient Development is being discussed currently which aims to DECREASE current parking and DECREASE those zoning requirements or standards in village law. So where is the village going?
Mary Too October 01, 2012 at 08:27 PM
"it's actually the property owners and their choice of tenants that brought about this vibrancy" Give me a break! The property owners in the business district will rent to anyone who is willing to pay the rent. . .
Allison October 05, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Mary Too, Please do a little fact checking with the property owners to see if your statement above holds water. You might want to also watch a village meeting, like the one on LMC TV last night when members of your ZBA made statements about the variances granted for required parking. Historically, parking is determined by a certain ratio of seating in a restaurant to parking, which currently many owners/tenants got variances from village law to not supply parking.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something