Cherry Valley Fields To the Editor:

As a resident I recently wrote an article informing GC residents that the fields on Cherry Valley were owned by GC. A HUGE proportion of GC residents were unaware of this fact. I intentionally wrote the article in a very generic manner to inform our town residents that we can and do need these fields for our children's activities and we do OWN them. I could have written a lengthy article about many surrounding issues but I elected to take the high road and just inform residents of our rightful ownership and our existing need. However, Garden City South Little League, specifically Rob Brusca, (who is on the board of the GC South Little league) responded by writing an article in which he accuses me of "distorting and omitting critical facts pertaining to the field situation." I initially elected to stay out of the surrounding issues but now that Rob Brusca has dragged me personally into this situation I am compelled to set the record straight.

Facts:

* I only decided to write the article after a girl representing GC South Little League appeared at our door soliciting a signature of our support of GC South being able to re-lease the Cherry Valley Fields from the Town of Hempstead (no mention of GC). The petition was explained and not given to my wife to read. As explained by the child, it appeared exceptionally one sided and omitted key facts relevant to GC residents (mainly that GC owned the field). While your organization wanted the support of GC residents in its presentation it failed to inform residents that GC really owned the field and/or that GC was considering not leasing the field again because at least some residents felt we needed the fields for our own children. To attempt to garner support under somewhat false verbal pretenses (or at least very partisan circumstances) is in my opinion unethical and inappropriate. Had your petition been explained fairly and openly I probably would have never written to the GC residents but as such I felt compelled to make certain they understood the entire issue before your organization continued to go door to door. Also, I'm just curious did your organization get the appropriate clearances and permits to go door to door in the incorporated village with this petition or did your organization knowingly violate a village law? I ask because no such permit to conduct the door-to-door campaign was shown to us.

* GC leases the fields to the Town of Hempstead who is free to lease them to whomever they see fit. GC does not directly lease these fields to GC South.

*We lease these fields for the token fee $12,000 per year.

*GC South Little League does currently lease this field from the Town of Hempstead.

*Many other Town of Hempstead fields and Nassau County fields DO IN FACT EXIST for GC South Little League to lease - they may not be as conveniently located but they are available and as Town of Hempstead residents (or county residents) they are entitled to lease them. IN FACT I even supplied a GC resident who has friends on the GC South Little League board with a list of fields, the Town of Hempstead web site and other relevant information to help them locate fields for their kids. These fields are numerous and even include local fields such as Echo Park Pool field located on Nassau Blvd (basically around the corner). Echo Park pool was so under utilized by West Hempstead Little League this past year that one of the primary organizations leasing this field this past year was CYO and the field was often utilized by teams from all over Nassau County.

* West Hempstead Little League has decreased enrollment in the past few years with the growth of other baseball programs and West Hempstead (your other immediate neighbor) has ample school fields. Potential solutions could possibly be found with this organization but as far as I am aware of to date have never been explored.

* Without the Cherry Valley Fields the Garden City South Little League kids will still be able to play baseball it will simply be a matter of where they play. They may not be in the same location they have been in the past, it may not be as convenient and it may take a little more coordination but they can play.

* Our need in GC is such that as a parent of a ball player who plays travel baseball in Garden City we have had to go out and lease fields at Eisenhower Park (East Meadow), Cantiague Park (Hicksville), Newbridge Park (Bellmore), and Wantagh Park because our teams cannot get all the necessary slots (times /days needed) within GC. This has nothing to do with the "inefficiency of the Rec" as stated by Mr. Brusca but rather the demand/need we have for certain days/times that exceed the amount of fields we have available. To list the parks and quantity of parks in GC misrepresents the fact that at many key times we are at or beyond capacity of these fields. Additionally it is self serving because he fails to mention that in one baseball/softball league alone we have over 1300 children and this does not include the almost 200 kids involved in travel baseball, the children of Challenger divisions as well as the host of other teams that are comprised of GC residents but are not a part of a GC run program. Furthermore, we have many more kids that play other spring sports (soccer, lacrosse etc) that often need to utilize these parks as not all of our parks are dedicated "baseball only" parks so our need goes far beyond our capacity at times.

* The March 6th, 2007 Recreation Department meeting had many GC residents turn out because the Cherry Valley fields were on the agenda. No GC resident and no one at the meeting voiced any support for future releasing of the fields; additionally no one on the Rec department committed/verbalized support of releasing of the field. However, the Rec department stated they understood the concerned residents position of "wanting the fields for our residents if we owned them" but went on to state the vote and final decision lay with the village trustees.

* This issue about field usage has to do with both the needs of our town and rightful ownership of the fields. To try to muddle the issue and make it a sportsmanship issue is inappropriate. Furthermore it is even more inappropriate to direct comments and ask me clarify "codes conduct" for organizations (specifically GCAA) of which I am not a board member. Lastly you do not know me personally so questioning my sportsmanship ethics is also inappropriate.

My opinions are solely directed to GC residents and at the needs of the children of our town. I apologize if this need conflicts with the conveniences of the children and parents of your organization but the bottom line is we own the fields, have every right to them and in my opinion we have a need for them. I sincerely hope you find a viable solution for your league as well and I firmly believe that you will.

Scott Kiley

Cable Competition Needed

To the Editor:

I think it's about time that this Village allowed some competition for Cablevision. They have had a lock on Garden City for years.

Last July, Verizon approached Garden City to be allowed to provide cable television to our residents. The town seems to be dragging their feet since then and no action has been taken.

I have listened to the excuses the Village provides and found lacking in substance. One reason given is that they might put up cable connection boxes on the sidewalks that might collect graffiti. Another is that they might mine information as to what shows people watch.

I am sure that after a years negotiation with a company that has shown an interest in doing business in Garden City, that compromises can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. I know many residents who want to take the three way package that Verizon is offering and feel as I do that it's time for the town allow competition to come in.

Richard S. Roche

Don't Drink The Water

To the Editor,

Did you see the Village's 2006 Drinking Water Quality Report dated May 2007?

Page 1 says, "We are pleased to report that our drinking water is safe and meets all Federal and State requirements".

Page 5 says, "Our drinking water is derived from ten (10) wells. The source water assessment has rated seven (7) of the wells as having a very high susceptibility to industrial solvents. The elevated susceptibility to industrial solvents is due primarily to point sources of contamination related to commercial / industrial facilities and related activities in the assessment area".

If that is "safe", I would love to know what's dangerous.

RobertReid