I don't know about the signatures, but I agree with the BOE's ruling re: residency.
Mr. White is claiming his office building as his residency, when in fact he does NOT live in the 133rd District. Owns property there, yes; his office. Has RESIDENCY there, no.

If Mr. White has such a burning desire to be in the Assembly, why didn't he run in the district he lives in? His actions are what give "politicians" a bad name -- trying to work the system for his own benefit. Did he ever once proclaim what he was going to DO for the residents of the 133rd? No, only what the 133rd was going to do for him -- if only he could tweek the law. The system worked. And the BOE stopped fraud.

Although White would have been a positive choice for the 133rd the BOE has made its choice. Meanwhile, other politicians, such as Tom Brennan are reworking their election image: I have engaged in a campaign to build a new man. See more here:

http://tom-brennan.blogspot.com/2010/05/thank-you-and-goodbye-for-now.html#comments

Simon

I have no desire to be in Albany. I do however have a burning desire to represent the citizens of the 133rd. AS community that I went to school in as a child; a community that I have a VERY LONG record of service to. IN that neighborhood I have closed down hundreds of drug houses; removed hundreds of guns; mobilized thousands of volunteers; designed youth antiviolence programs in those neighborhoods (including Late Night Basketball); opened up a safe house and a police minisubstation; watched my son play for the Baden Street Bulldogs; etc.

In contrast my involvement in the SE (131 Assembly District) is quite limited. Therefore the goal for me was NEVER to just get in the Assembly. If that were the goal I would have run for Susan John's seat. Rather my goal was to serve a community in the Assembly that I knew and that has known me and my family.

IN this regard, "Darla", you should know that when I initially filed court papares (several months agoa to get an advance judicial ruling on the residency issue) I asked the court to also consider our family home in the Southwest side of the City. That home has been in my wife's family for generations. We sleep, eat, and enjoy the company of the neighbors. Consequently, your characterization of my request as fradulent is unfair and legally inaccurate.

In any event, while a select few in this community certianly hope that the Board's decision is the final word on this matter, the law provides for judicial review of such decisions. One of the issues that the court must decide whether it was right for the BOE to disenfranchise hundreds voters who were legitimate residents of the 133rd and lawfully registered Democrats. According to the BOE their signatures were stricken because they had moved. (By the way the law did not require that these people give notice of their change of address.)

This is a BOE decision/practice I hope to end by appealing the BOE's decision. In a community where 60% of the property is rental property, it is unconsionable that the BOE would remove these signatures when the law DOES not even require that these voters provide the BOE with a change of address. IN fact, I would hope all members of this community (people who support Mr. Gantt as well as those who do not) would rally against this BOE decisions which in effect disenfranchises hundreds of lawful voters.

It appears that you are just like your friend Morelle -- sticking your nose into someone else's business. He keeps wanting Mayoral Control for a City he doesn't live in -- and you want to stay in your safe Mulberry Street address and represent people in the poorest section of town. If the two of you REALLY had a desire to represent your neighbors -- you would live next to them. It's clear that you've made a deal with Morelle and Duffy to run for Mayor -- Rochester's version of 3 men in a room.