Supporters,

When I last wrote, we had filed an Article 78 lawsuit challenging Yonkers’ drastic increase in residential noise limits.

Since then, two things have become unmistakably clear:
1. The City did not tell the truth about the records behind this ordinance.
2. The City Council attempted to quietly “fix” the law in June 2025 without following proper procedure.

Let’s take them one at a time.

## 1. The FOIL “No Records” Claim — and the Smoking Gun

For months, the City of Yonkers stonewalled when we asked for records they are required by law to provide. They didn’t answer our emails. They gave us the runaround, routing us from department to department. They repeatedly ignored appeals.

When we finally got their attention, months later, they insisted that there were: 
No emails.
No internal communications.
No documentation.
No “responsive records” explaining how this ordinance came into being.

That was their official position.
Only after we filed suit did records begin to surface.
And those records include what can fairly be called a smoking gun.
The emails now produced show:

* A private individual with a direct stake in weakening the ordinance emailed Council Member Diaz.
* Shortly thereafter, Diaz drafted the ordinance.
* The same individual contributed $1,000 to Diaz's campaign, and also agreed to host a fundraiser in her house for Diaz, co-hosted by Mayor Spano.
* The individual was kept informed as the legislation advanced.
* The ordinance was placed on Diaz’s own committee agenda and moved to the full Council.
* When Diaz later appeared before the ethics board, she blatantly lied to them about why she sponsored the ordinance. She was unanimously cleared of wrongdoing.

The documentary trail exists.
The City initially said it did not.
Even now, additional categories of records remain unproduced.
The only reason these emails came to light is because a lawsuit was filed. That is not how transparency is supposed to function — but it is how it functioned here.

## 2. June 2025: The Attempt to “Fix” It Quietly

Then came June 2025.
After errors in the ordinance became undeniable, the City Council voted to “amend” the law.
But they did so:
* Without proper public notice of what was actually being changed.
* Without a meaningful public hearing on the substance of those changes.
* Without fully explaining how the codified law differed from what had originally been voted on.
* And with the false promise that it was just a "technical fix," and that the city would conduct a study of the noise issue, allowing for future reconsideration of the ordinance. That was a smokescreen - no study has been done, or even mentioned.

The Council is accustomed to operating without meaningful oversight. Procedures are often treated casually. Technical requirements are viewed as obstacles rather than safeguards.

The June vote appears to have followed that pattern.
The assumption seemed to be that the change could be pushed through — sloppily, and without scrutiny — because no one would object.

We are objecting.
Laws cannot be rewritten without public input. They cannot be altered behind closed doors and later described as “corrections.” The City Charter and state law require process for a reason. That process protects residents, not politicians.

## 3. The Environmental Impact — Still Ignored

Amid all of this, one fact remains:
There has never been a meaningful environmental or health review of these changes.

Raising nighttime limits from 50 dBA to 65 dBA and authorizing daytime levels as high as 85 dBA is not a trivial adjustment. Noise affects sleep, cardiovascular health, and children’s development.

There is no record of:
* Environmental impact analysis,
* Public health consultation,
* Or expert review supporting these increases.

That silence is as significant as any email.

## 4. Why This Matters

This case is no longer simply about decibel levels.
It is about:

* A City claiming records did not exist — until forced to produce them.
* Legislation advancing in coordination with an interested party.
* An attempt to quietly “repair” a flawed law without lawful procedure.
* A pattern of governance that assumes no one is watching.
* A City Council member who blatantly lied to the ethics board, with no consequences.

We are watching.
The Article 78 case continues. The FOIL litigation continues. Additional disclosures are expected.
Transparency should not require a lawsuit. In Yonkers, it has.
Thank you for standing with us.
    
– Peter Cohn