Thank You To The Editor:

The evening of January 22, 2005, I had my first angina attack. Immediately I called the Garden City 911 dispatcher. Within one minute Garden City Police officers Dempsey and Dallolio were knocking on our door. They immediately administered oxygen and, most importantly, kept giving me moral support, something I needed very badly. In the next few minutes Nassau County Paramedic Sieman arrived in the police ambulance. These officers took me to Winthrop Hospital where we arrived within 15 minutes from the attack. Their speedy and professional actions were instrumental in saving my life. I will always be thankful for the help they gave me during the heavy snowstorm. We should consider ourselves fortunate living in an area with the best police and ambulance services.

Frank Margaritis

Biking Across America

To the Editor,

Currently I am a Boston College senior who majored in Communications and am set to graduate this May. In 2001 I graduated from Garden City High School. My parents, Byron and Cecily Peeples still live in Garden City.

This summer I will be biking across America with thirty other college students through Yale's Habitat for Humanity to raise money and awareness for the cause. As a group we will be biking 4,063 miles from New Haven, CT to Portland, OR. The journey begins May 28th and lasts through to the end of July. We will be riding on average 80 miles per day. Local churches and community centers will house and feed us along the way. In order to go on this trip I have to raise $4,000! I would love it if you could include this exciting trip in an upcoming Garden City News. Donations be sent to:

Habitat for Humanity of New Haven 37 Union Street New Haven, CT 06511

or donations can be made online at: http://www.yale.edu/habitat/donation/donate.html Checks and online donations should be sure to include my name somewhere on them (Genevieve Peeples).

More information about the Habitat Bicycle Challenge can be found at the website: www.yale.edu/habitat.

With many thanks,

Genevieve Peeples

Fresh Opportunity

To the Editor:

More than a decade ago, the Village acquired the entire St. Paul's School property through eminent domain "for public use." Although the fields and field house were quickly devoted to public recreational uses, the Historic Main Building became mired in controversy. For better or worse, an ill-fated plan to lease the Main Building to a private developer was stopped through a taxpayer lawsuit. Nevertheless, the ongoing debate over public verses private use has resulted in a continued political stalemate.

Village Trustees have a fresh opportunity to break the stalemate. According to recent news reports, the new Mayor's Committee surveyed the needs of our community and found a strong demand for public space. "A true cross section of Village groups, representing all age groups, have a need for space ... and St. Paul's has the space to satisfy many of those needs."

If the Committee's survey is accurate, the Village can easily fill the first floor and lower level of the Main Building with multigenerational public uses including an expanded senior center, meeting rooms and offices for community groups. The entire community and its residents would immediately benefit. And to the extent the Main Building would still contain unused/unneeded space on the second and third floors, most public use proponents (myself included) would have no objection to the Village seeking State Legislative approval for the leasing of unneeded office space to local commercial businesses. Lease revenues, of course, would help to defray the cost of the public use, without interfering with or preempting the public use of the remainder of the Main Building.

A compromise like this makes eminent sense to me. The Village has invested too much time, effort and money to give up the chance to turn the Main Building into a showcase public facility, there appears to be a strong public demand for space in such a facility, and the potential revenues from the lease of unneeded space can make the facility a fiscally prudent reality.

Michael A. Ciaffa

Stand Up For Families

To the Editor:

I recently read the article in the paper about the opposition to the full-day program while doing research for the same cause in Maryland.

Stand up for values of traditional families

Looking back on your childhood, you may remember the anticipation of walking into kindergarten for the first time or the anxiety on your mother's face as she left the classroom or waved as you stepped onto the school bus. Her only saving grace was that you would be home in a few short hours.

I can still see the smile on my daughter's face as she walked into kindergarten this past September -- the excitement in her eyes as my heart was breaking. I couldn't wait for her to walk out the door at 11:30 a.m.

Seeing her brought tears streaming down my face. I couldn't wait to pick her up and as the school year has gone by I still anxiously await pick-up time.

As a parent, it is like knocking down a brick wall when you mention your opposition to the full-day kindergarten program. What is wrong with sending a child to a normal kindergarten program and spending the rest of the day together? What is wrong with nurturing them at this age?

Increasing the number of children who attend schools also increases state education cost and taxes. More teachers need to be hired and that leads to a need for more administrative staff.

Rushing these children into formal education too soon will weaken the role of family in their lives. Many parents want to spend this valuable time with their children. At this age, family values are more important.

Our education system should encourage excellence and responsibility in parenting, so children can develop emotionally and socially. In return, they will grow academically and be better able to encounter the challenges of adulthood.

These are our children. Let them be exactly what they are -- children. Give parents an opportunity to raise and nurture their children, to instill the family values that are important at this age.

It would be nice if someone would look out for families who are not supportive of the all-day program and support them. Yes, research has been done and all-day kindergarten benefits some children( academically and socially) . The program eliminates day-care overload, children being shuffled from day-care to school and back to day-care, it also is a blessing to working parents, and the children that have special needs. What about the children who do not fall into any of the above listed categories? How do they benefit from the program? What is wrong with them going home and playing and being the 5 year old that they are? They will be in school the next 13 plus years. Is Kindergarten that beneficial?

Look at yourself, did your kindergarten experience make you the successful doctor, lawyer, DJ, restaurant owner, electrician, plumber, teacher that you are today?

This is something that I full heartedly believe in and support. I am sure I am not alone in supporting the traditional family, hopefully others will come out and stand up for what they believe in.

Christine Figgs

Ocean City, MD

Ask Questions

To The Editor:

Readers of this newspaper may be aware that I oppose the proposed full-perimeter jogging/walking path at St. Paul’s field. I hold this view on the grounds of security and safety, redundancy, and detriment to the interests of abutting residents on Hampton Road and St. Paul’s Place.

This letter is addressed to those who favor the path - residents, POA officials, Village Trustees and Commissioners of the Recreation Board. My message is that the Recreation Board has not provided full disclosure regarding their plans for the path and, in some cases, has given out vague, misleading, ambiguous or incomplete information to our Village. My point is unless all the facts are disclosed, and in writing , proponents of the path are somewhat in the dark, and negative surprises are likely if the path is built. In short, I don’t think the Recreation Commission has its act together re the path.

Here are my major complaints and points:

1. As of now, there is nothing in writing from the Recreation Department. Why is the path being built? Was a needs assessment conducted? Why was a compromise path (on Stewart and Rockaway only) rejected? Why are safety and crime warnings being ignored? How will non-residents be prevented from accessing the field? etc., etc.

2. There are no formal, detailed plans for the route of the path. A rough artist’s sketch is all that exists. It’s the equivalent of an artist’s rendering being used to construct a building. We need to see some numbers regarding placement of the path, distances from property lines, from the parking lot, 2 driveways, the baseball field, from existing shrubs and trees, from the Stewart Avenue fence line and from Rockaway Avenue. All four sides of the perimeter are different. Thus we need to know precise dimensions and trajectory.

3. The proposed path is eight feet wide. This fact was disclosed only during the last month or so -- and never in a formal manner. Many, myself included, all this a road and not a path. Some recreation and Village officials have rationalized the width as needed for the heavy anticipated traffic of joggers and walkers. Others have told us that emergency vehicles (ambulance, fire, police) will benefit from the road. Lastly, I’ve heard that village maintenance trucks and utility repair vehicles can use the road. First, no expected volume of joggers justifies an eight foot wide path. Most users will be single file -- or double at the most. Currently, on average, only about a dozen joggers and walkers daily use the grass perimeter path. Secondly, emergency vehicles won’t use the perimeter path, but will instead go in a beline to the site of the trouble.

For 50 years, emergency vehicles and utility repair trucks have operated without a road, with no complaints from anybody. Also, I can just imagine the illegal traffic on this road, i.e., joy riders, voyeurs, drag racers, mopeds, bicycles, skateboards, etc. Abutting residents and players on the field would now be threatened by far more than crime, and entry to the field would be unrestricted 24 hours a day. Finally, consider the desecration of our beautiful field by an ugly road, not to mention the trips-and falls of children and adults as they stumble across the path from the grass.

4. You can’t have it both ways. I ask Kevin Ocker (head of Recreation), is it a path or a road? If just a path it would be narrower and cost a lot less than the $110,000 -plus price tag. The surface would also be softer underfoot. If it is intended as a road, the surface would have to be harder and stronger and thus less comfortable for walking and jogging. If trucks use the softer crushed limestone, the path would quickly become broken and potholed.

5. The eastern route of the path is quite difficult to envision. Would the rout move dangerously close to the baseball field? Would an eight foot wide new path be built parallel to the existing eight foot wide parking lot sidewalk? How ludicrous! Would the soccer fields near Rockaway be affected? (The path must be situated west of the parking lot to avoid two driveways and the St. Paul’s main building.)

6. Bottom line. Before our Village Trustees approve this very controversial path plan, we should pause and ask more questions regarding its purpose, route, shape and surface. For example, distances from property lines on St. Paul’s Place and Hampton Road must be identical--and guaranteed. Ambiguity must be eliminated by a written plan, and precise professional drawings. There should be no more smoke and mirrors. As Ronald Reagan said... “trust and verify.” Show us the plans!

If these procedures are followed, perhaps some Trustees, Village officials, POA directors and residents will demand an end to a poorly conceived and poorly explained plan which I view as a “Trojan Horse” for a road disguised as a jogging/walking path.

George M. Salem