Letters To The Editor

Email: editor@ gcnews.com

Stepping Down

To the Editor:

Several days ago, I advised Mayor Bee of my decision to step down as chairman of the Mayor's Committee for St. Paul's, and to leave the Committee altogether. The Committee, as most readers probably know, is the group of trustees and residents, supported by professional consultants, who have been working - literally for years - to try to find a workable solution for saving the St. Paul's Main Building with minimal to no taxpayer expense. Before going public with my decision, I wanted the Mayor to have some time to consider a likely replacement.

Refocus on Saving St. Paul's

I've made this decision for several reasons. First among them is that I want to refocus the St. Paul's issue where it properly belongs - on consideration of alternatives for saving the building and on the process remaining for achieving that objective, rather than on me as the primary person responsible for moving the process along. Some people would prefer to make me the issue, rather than allowing an honest examination of the facts. By stepping aside, I hope to remove that as a possible diversion.

Questions of

Personal Benefit

Secondly, I want to eliminate any suggestion of impropriety based on any investment or business relationship between AvalonBay, the designated developer for St. Paul's and my employer, CB Richard Ellis.

At the Board of Trustees meeting on February 7, Mr. Edmund Keating, a founding member of the group known as the Committee to Save St. Paul's ("CSSP), made clear his belief that I've really spent years of effort searching for a way to save the building, because the project is an investment and business opportunity for my employer, CB Richard Ellis, in its dealings with AvalonBay, the designated developer for St. Paul's, and something that would stand to benefit me personally. How absurd!

I'm disappointed that Mr. Keating, whom I've known for years, would try to undermine my good name (once again) simply because he prefers another approach for St. Paul's. Until the issue was raised at the Board meeting, I was unaware of any business relationship between my employer and AvalonBay. And, if I had known of one, I would have announced that fact in public immediately.

Many of the alleged "facts" in Mr. Keating's statement were presented out of context, or are just plain wrong. The connection between the two companies is of absolutely no consequence to the redevelopment of St. Paul's, or to me personally. I also want to make it clear that none of this has anything to do with any decisions I have made as a Trustee - regarding St. Paul's or anything else. None the less, as long as there is any business connection between the two companies, I realize that will be a convenient way to cast doubt on the fairness of the St. Paul's process, and to question my motives in seeking to advance the redevelopment. Once I learned of the relationship, I resolved immediately to step down from the Committee to avoid any suggestion of impropriety.

Civility and Rationality

I'm also leaving in the hope that my departure will cause the residents to demand a greater sense of civility and rationality in the debates over the future of the building. For those who truly want to save the building, it's long past time to end the personal attacks, to focus on the facts, and apply a more reasoned and rationale approach. The Mayor's Committee, assisted by professionals, has done that, and has followed a long, systematic and analytical process to get where we are today. But that has been done in the face of almost messianic opposition from some residents who believe that any redevelopment must include certain building amenities - especially including substantial space reserved for community and public use. There is also a demand to block any additional development on the property.

Within reason, almost anything anybody wants can be done in restoring the building. But, in the final analysis it's all about the costs involved - financial and otherwise - and who is going to pay them; the developer, the taxpayers, or someone else. From an analytical standpoint, if additional public space is needed, it would be far less expensive for the taxpayers to pay for the construction of a new building for that purpose, rather than to demand that space be set aside in the St. Paul's Main Building.

The group calling itself the Committee to Save St. Paul's ("CSSP"), working with their developer, the Canus Group, was given over a year to fashion some means of saving the building that would be feasible, affordable to the public, and that would include all the public space that the CSSP and their supporters demand. Despite a dedicated effort to their cause, they failed to do so. After careful review and analysis by real estate and financial professionals, the development proposal the group submitted was judged to be vastly inferior on all levels to the AvalonBay proposal, and one that could not be undertaken without significant financial risk and expense to the Village. The additional - and ongoing - cost the CSSP/Canus redevelopment would have entailed for the taxpayers is much greater than any amount the residents would have to pay for public space under any proposals now being refined by AvalonBay. The CSSP's inability to come up with a workable solution, however, hasn't stopped its members from criticizing the efforts of the Mayor's Committee in trying to present the public with detailed viable options for saving the building. We are almost there.

Let's stop the invective, the personal attacks, and the spread of distorted and misleading information, and let's allow the residents to consider the facts. Once the residents have had an opportunity to see and learn about the options for redevelopment that will shortly be presented, they can decide for themselves whether they agree. No proposal that will be offered is going to provide all that everyone wants. Those that involve the development or set aside of public space will entail additional costs to the residents, either in the form of additional taxes, additional development on the property, or both. Some people may decide that none of the options offer enough tangible benefit to warrant their support. If the process is allowed to proceed, however, at least the residents will have an opportunity to make that choice. Let the process go forward, and the facts come out. Then we can all decide.

Misinformation

Finally, leaving the Committee may allow me more time and flexibility to correct some of the misinformation that continues to be spread about the building, about the Mayor's Committee, about the process and about possible options for building redevelopment. People are entitled to their own opinions about all of these; but they aren't entitled to make up their own "facts," and present them as "the truth." Much of the information that has begun to reappear about these subjects is confused, distorted or totally incorrect. I hope to have a role in correcting some of this so the process can move forward to a conclusion.

John Mauk

Residents To Vote?

To the Editor:

Have you ever been to a Village Board meeting? Probably not!! Well you might be interested in knowing that the Village Board has not once discussed the specifics of the AvonBay deal in public. They have decided to leave all of the communications to AvonBay. A little curious! They must be doing some hard negotiating behind closed doors or are they?

Did you spend time going to one of the AvonBay presentations? You might be interested to know that the information given out to the public at these presentations has been described as a "trial balloon" according to comments made by the Village Trustees. They have said that the proposal described in the original AvonBay presentation probably would not be approved.

So what should we expect next? I assume another "trial balloon" will be launched by AvonBay.

And then you might get a chance to vote. At this time, it seems most likely to be a poll. If a poll, how many residents will be considered a representative sample? Will this be a yes or no opinion? Will it be a written poll or a phone poll?

I think it is important that everyone be prepared for a poll event. Make sure you understand what you will be committing the Village too. The Village Board has said primarily by its actions and also by the infamous Memorandum of Understanding that it probably will leave all the public communications to AvonBay.

And here is what you should expect at the Village Board meeting that will make the final decision. There will be an agenda item that says "approve AvonBay development". There is no requirement for discussion and there might only be a hand vote, either for or against the development. You might never know why the Board members voted for or against this project. In fact, at the time of the vote, we might not even know the details of the final proposal. That might only be given after the vote.

The cost to residents for the proposed public space in the renovated building as presented by AvonBay is outrageous. The fact that we will have significant development on the site without a tax benefit to the Village is also outrageous. We also lose the last large piece of publicly owned land in the Village to an apartment building and parking garage.

Remember, we own the building, we own the land and as residents we must make sure this is the right alternative. If you don't have enough information to make a decision, vote no. If you don't like the financials, vote no. If you think there are better alternatives, vote no. Only vote for this proposed development if you are truly convinced it is the best deal for the community. Although other alternatives are limited, they do exist.

Jon Schwieger

Ethics Rules Needed

To The Editor:

In an article in the Financial Times of February 4, 2008, it is pointed out that the failure to speak out in the area of ethics "is corrosive and undermines trust."

Some don't speak out and thus give voice to value because they do not consider themselves "high enough up to voice their views." Some believe that codes of ethics merely hamper people who run governments and businesses.

The government in both New York and New Jersey are falling prey to these sentiments. Home rule is the foremost reason why taxes and spending are so high and in some instances even out of control.

Courses in ethics are taught both in colleges and professional schools. Ethics are taught in New York State as a part of the requirement to keep one's legal license.

But the foregoing is not the answer. Ethics must play a role in everyone's life on a continuous basis. Am I wasting my time? The WPOA apparently thinks I am.

I have stopped paying dues to the WPOA. If you agree, I suggest that you do the same.

Joseph A. Calamari

Consider Resignation

To the Editor:

The information disclosed about Trustee Mauk is extremely disturbing. The appearance of a conflict of interest is evident. This puts a pall on the whole Avalon Bay issue. I am surprised that it went this far knowing the Trustee's legal background. Resignation from the St. Pauls Committee must be considered. This is a clear indication to us all that the community agreement must be rewritten and accountability and responsibility be re-instituted in the Village. As a Trustee was he truly representing the views of the citizens of the Estates section of Garden City?

St. Paul's is an issue we all voted on to purchase and use for the public good more than a decade ago . All of us not just a select few should have a voice in what happens to it. Please hear this State Senator Kemp Hannon - we are counting on you to be fair!!!

Donald Pfail

Troubling Comments

To The Editor:

The following comments, which are attributed to Village Trustee Mauk, have been printed in The Garden City News.

"It is village counsel who is responsible for reviewing contracts and legal documents thoroughly to ensure the Village's best interest is being considered." (GCN: 01/18/2008)

"It was the job of village counsel Gerard Fishberg, not the Board of Trustees, to scrutinize legal documents to ensure the Village's best interest was considered." (GCN: 12/28/07)

Nevertheless, the esteemed law firm hired by the Board of Trustees advises and represents the Board; not the Village residents. As and when it provides legal advice to the Board, counsel is giving its professional opinion as to its reading and interpretation of applicable law and the documents which it has reviewed. Village Counsel is not acting, per se, to ensure that the residents' best interests are being considered - that is not counsel's function or right.

Instead, the responsibility vests with each of the individual Trustees, elected by the Village residents, in the respective exercise of his or her individual judgment and integrity, to ensure that the best interests of the Village residents are considered and acted upon.

It is deemed to be a decisional duty of such a magnitude and paramount importance (a fiduciary duty that vests indelibly in each elected member of the Board), that it can be delegated to no one - not even to a fellow Trustee.

It is further reported that this same Trustee issued recently a challenge to a fellow Trustee by asking if he wanted to be part of the solution or part of the problem. However, I cannot think of a more pressing situation for Village residents than a Trustee who appears to have relinquished non-delegable "best interests" decisional responsibility to a law firm.

John T. Harris

Change Needed

To the Editor,

In my previous letter with regard to the AvalonBay project, I wrote...I am beginning to suspect the credibility of our elected Trustees. Is this Board committed to representing the residents of our village and the future of our community, or might it be that the Board has its own agenda which has not been made public? Only time will tell.

Based on the information that was disclosed at the last Board of Trustee's meeting, I see that time DID tell! I believe it is time Trustee Mauk resigns from the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's due to his apparent conflict of interest between his employer, CB Richard Ellis, and our village.

Mayor Bee would do our community a great service if he replaced Trustee Mauk with a candidate that only has our village's interest as his primary concern. The mayor should expand the committee to include knowledgeable and concerned residents.

I agree with other residents who suggested that we rethink the Gentlemen's Agreement as our form of government. However, due to the apparent con-flict of interest, our concern and priority should now be with the St. Paul's project. We desperately need a committee that reflects the interests of our residents and the village as opposed to self dealing.

J. A. Cerny

Why Not Resign?

To the Editor:

I am perplexed and surmise many others are as well why Mr. Mauk would not resign from the internal Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's and not recuse himself from any additional voting on this controversial issue. Whether there is a valid conflict of interest remains to be seen and may be interpreted in many ways by many individuals. However, the perception of a conflict of interest is just as strong as a clearly defined one. Make no mistake about it; there is a definite perception of such. As a professional and a long time Village volunteer Mr. Mauk should be cognizant of the importance of always remaining neutral in addition to said perception.

The perception at this stage is the issue at hand. There is an old axiom whereby 'The facts are the facts and the truth is always the truth.' There is no disputing that Mr. Mauk's employer has a substantial financial interest via ownership of AvalonBay stock, which has been previously reported. There is no disputing that Mr. Mauk has been aggressive in advocating for the development of St. Paul's and with AvalonBay. Why then is Mr. Mauk so reluctant to resign and recuse himself? Is it just an inflated ego or more than that? The perception factor is raising its ugly head again. Would Mr. Mauk or anyone else be selected to serve on an unrelated jury trial if his/her employer had a financial interest in a company that was either a plaintiff or defendant in a civil or criminal matter? Would an arbitrator or a judge hear a case if he/she had even a remotely associated financial interest in a company involving either party? I think not. As a Village trustee and the next mayor Mr. Mauk should be held to a higher standard and set an example for others to follow. I believe the honorable and prudent thing to do would be for him to immediately resign and recuse himself from further proceedings.

Michael L. Ryder

Tear It Down

To the Editor:

Arguments over the fate of the St. Paul's building have been going on for fifteen years. The building is a rotting eyesore and has become a monument to government incompetence. Tear it down!

Martin A. Waters

Editorial Wrong

To the Editor:

The Villages of Garden City and Mineola have long enjoyed a relationship of mutual respect and cooperation in many ways. I am therefore surprised and quite disappointed to read your "A Word From The Publisher" column in the February 22, 2008 Garden City News which states that Garden City "is right to be outraged" over the approval of a 285 unit luxury condominium on the northwest corner of Old Country Road and Willis Avenue in Mineola.

It was equally surprising that you would write such a column without extending me the courtesy of a telephone call or a request for a meeting or even come to a public hearing in Mineola. A bit of journalistic professionalism might have mitigated some of your "outrage" concerning Mineola's efforts to revitalize its downtown through the establishment of transit oriented development, affordable senior housing, pe-destrian linkages to our central business district, additional municipal and private parking and façade improvements along Old Country Road. You also might have gotten some of your "facts" correct.

Let me take a moment to review what, until this point in time, has been a longstanding relationship of cooperation and mutual respect between Mineola and Garden City.

Mineola Grade Crossing Elimination Project

During the late 1980's, Mineola invited Garden City to be part of the review process for the Mineola Grade Crossing Elimination Project. This project involved the elimination of at-grade LIRR crossings at Herricks Road and Roslyn Road and the reconstruction of the Mineola Boulevard Bridge. The two villages examined the project together, communicated the needs of their residents and were able to help develop a plan for the benefit of both communities. No one can deny that these Mineola projects have resulted in travel benefits to the residents of Garden City, and I truly believe that we folks in Mineola demonstrated to Garden City that we were good neighbors in that process.

Sound Cable Project

Mineola and Garden City also joined forces in opposing the Sound Cable Project which involved the installation of a high-voltage underground cable from the Long Island Sound and down Roslyn Road/Washington Avenue through both villages to Stewart Avenue. Although our villages were even-tually unsuccessful in the courts, both communities put up the best opposition possible and were able to secure concessions from the New York Power Authority in design and environmentally protective features that otherwise would not have been realized. The residents of Mineola picked up the greater part of the legal costs of that fight and I think that we demonstrated to Garden City that we were good neighbors in the process.

LIRR Hempstead

Line Freight Spur

At the request of Garden City, Mineola also joined in opposition to a proposed freight facility at the terminus of the Long Island Rail Road Hemp-stead Spur since the residents of Garden City believed that the introduction of railroad freight traffic through their village would diminish their quality of life. Mineola successfully lobbied its State Senator to join with Garden City's State Senator in passing legislation to prevent the freight program from ever happening. I believe that we were able to demonstrate to Garden City that we were good neighbors in coming to the aid of its citizens.

Nassau County

Social Services Building

More recently, when Nassau County rolled out its plan to sell off the Social Services Building in Garden City for private development and to significantly reduce public parking at the County's Court and Government Complex, it was Mineola who stepped up to protect not only its interests but those of Garden City as well.

The County had performed a less-than-adequate environmental review of the proposed property sell-off and the elimination of parking from the project would have resulted in a tsunami of cars being displaced to Mineola and also to Garden City's residential streets.

We asked Garden City to join Mineola in challenging the ill-advised plan of the County, especially because of its predicted environmental impact on Garden City itself. Surprisingly, our request was met with indifference and there did not seem to be any interest by Garden City to examine the environmental impacts of a major project within its own borders.

As many of you are aware, Mineola was successful in its solo legal challenge to the County's project and Mineola was able to make sure that any parking eliminated as a result of the sale of property in the County Complex would be replaced. This challenge was undertaken at the sole expense of the residents and property owners of Mineola even though both villages benefited from the result. Our concern involved not only impacts in Mineola but also the ripple effect in Garden City's residential community surrounding the Court Complex. I think that we were able to demonstrate to Garden City that we were good neighbors in that process.

Moving the Family Court to Garden City

Garden City requested the assistance of Mineola in opposing the relocation of the Family Court from Westbury to Garden City. Mineola, out of respect for its sister village, gave its full support to opposing the move. In fact, as a result of Mineola's lawsuit, any future plan to relocate the Family Court to Garden City will involve Mineola's review. Garden City asked for help; Mineola gave it. I think that we demonstrated that we were good neighbors.

Mineola

Intermodal Center

Mineola also involved Garden City in the Mineola Intermodal Center project. We met with Garden City's administration in order to explain the project and to indicate how it could impact Garden City. We met with the Board of Directors of the Central Property Owners' Association. We met with the Board of Directors of Cherry Valley Co-op. The Long Island Rail Road attended all of these meetings at our request and direction. The purpose was to demonstrate that we are good neighbors and that we did not want to go forward with a project which could negatively impact the residents of Garden City.

Mineola, a partner in the Intermodal Center, was able to broker an arrangement whereby the Rail Road created a buffer of natural screening so that headlights of cars and buses heading south to Old Country Road on Fourth Avenue would not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the residents on the south side of Old Country Road. I think that we demonstrated to Garden City that we were good neighbors in that process.

Third Track Project

One current topic of cooperation is the Long Island Rail Road Main Line Improvement Project, better known as the Third Track Project. Mineola and Garden City have a number of interests in common concerning the Third Track Project. It is my opinion that the residents of both Mineola and Garden City stand to benefit from a cooperative relationship between the two villages if, indeed, such is to be.

Nassau Hub

Garden City is currently on alert concerning the County Executive's Plan to establish the Nassau County Hub pro-ject in the vicinity of the Nassau Coliseum. The reason: the Hub plan contemplates a light rail or rapid bus transportation system which would begin at the Mineola railroad station, travel east to Roosevelt Field and the Source Mall, bend through Nassau Community College, hit the Coliseum and the balance of the Hub, run through Hofstra, then westerly through Hempstead Village and then north through Garden City utilizing the LIPA right-of-way which runs right up the middle of the village.

Garden City has reached out for our support in opposing the Hub project because there is no way that it wants that transit system to pass through its village. Mineola has worked with Garden City in reviewing and criticizing the Hub project to date. But it should be known that we have been advised that Nassau County has looked at this site as a possible venue for its Hub transportation and parking center and if The Winston is not built the site might be taken by the County for that purpose.

The Winston

Condominium Proposal

When the application for The Winston was delivered to Mineola, we immediately notified Garden City. On November 30, 2007 a Memorandum outlining the scope of the project was sent to Garden City along with floor plans, renderings, elevation drawings, a traffic study and an economic analysis. Additionally, Mineola, without any request from Garden City, required the applicant to expand its traffic study and its economic impact analysis to in-clude appropriate areas in Garden City. We thought that was a neighborly thing to do.

Documents were sent to Garden City's professional planners for review. Mineola put its professional planners in touch with those of Garden City to make sure that a full and fair review of the project would take place through dialog. Once Garden City's planners had prepared a report, they were asked by Mineola to send it to the planning consultants of the applicant so that all three planning firms could coordinate their reviews. However, Garden City's planners, for some strange reason, were told that they were not authorized to release their report to the applicant's planners.

Mineola conducted three hearings on the Winston project. Official representatives of Garden City only attended the third hearing along with their professional planner. I believe that they were treated with courtesy and respect, even though they had determined not to contact us in advance.

Garden City's Testimony at the Hearing

At the third public hearing on the application, held on February 13, 2008, official representatives of the Incorporated Village of Garden City appeared and gave testimony. Trustee Nicholas Episcopia, former mayor Hal Hecken and Garden City Professional planner Thomas Yardley all spoke on the record. The concerns voiced by these representa-tives centered around "urbanization," traffic and possible cumulative impacts of other potential projects.

I believe that I was able to answer a number of questions raised by the comments of Garden City's representatives. For example, with respect to traffic, I pointed out that a large building, whether residential (condominium or rental) or commercial, would be built upon the site in any event. However, both Mr. Yardley and I agreed on the record that the traffic impact of the commercial building would be much more significant than that of a residential building. Traffic studies evaluating areas of Garden City confirmed that conclusion.

With respect to the concern over potential cumulative impacts if other similar projects are contemplated in Mineola, I pointed out that no other pro-ject has been proposed but that in any event the only site for a potentially large development is the former Keyspan Building site on the north side of Old Country Road just west of Third Avenue. I also mentioned that should any proposal be made to develop or redevelop that site, a full hearing process and environmental study would be under-taken.

Finally, with respect to the concern about "urbanization," Mineola's professional planner, Paul Grygiel, pointed out that the proposed building is in scale with neighboring structures and that Mineola has been designated as one of eleven "regional downtowns" in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut region by the Regional Plan Association, a well-respected non-profit planning or-ganization. He mentioned that the "regional downtowns" were selected for their mixed-use character, the presence of high-frequency transit service and their ability to accommodate additional growth, among other things. Mineola, he reported, is an appropriate location for more intense development than would be appropriate elsewhere.

At the end of the hearing it was suggested that Garden City invite Vincent Polimeni, the developer, and myself to appear before the Garden City Board of Trustees in order to give an overview of the project and to discuss why, from our point of view, the project is beneficial not only to Mineola but also to Garden City. Trustee Episcopia confirmed that such was a good idea and indicated that he would speak with Gar-den City's mayor about the invitation. To date we have not heard back and have not been invited.

Why This Project is

Important to Mineola

Mineola, like many villages on Long Island, is a mature suburb whose downtown business district is in need of significant revitalization. In order to promote that revitalization, Mineola has engaged in a number of studies and has formulated a Master Plan which is intended to bring economic vibrancy and gentrification to the area. That Plan has been presented to organizations in Garden City on a number of occasions and has been warmly received.

The Master Plan sets a number of goals for the vicinity of The Winston: façade improvement along Old Country Road, pedestrian connectivity to the downtown, creative forms of housing, including affordable senior housing and transportation related development.

The Winston promotes these goals and more. Not only will The Winston's façade enhance Old Country Road, but the project also calls for a complemen-tary façade change for the office building at 170 Old Country Road. The addition of 285 residential units in the downtown will bring pedestrian traffic, store and restaurant patronage and added safety to the area. Street-scape improvements will produce direct connectivity to the downtown business district. Mineola's seniors will be given the opportunity for affordable housing in 36 units to be constructed a block away from the project. Financial incentives will allow Mineola to purchase a new fire truck and to attend to much-needed off-site infrastructure improvements.

Having The Winston in Mineola also provides a place to live for not only the children who grew up in Mineola but also for the children of Garden City who are looking to start out their lives.

These are the plusses. But are there negatives? We honestly don't see them.

With respect to traffic, let's face facts. There are a lot of cars in the Garden City/Mineola corridor. We entertain many daily visitors to the County Complex. In fact, Mineola pro-vides commuter parking for many Garden City residents who find our railroad station more convenient than their own. But The Winston will have less of an impact as compared to what could be built on the site as of right. In such case, why would you or Garden City be "outraged" that the lesser impact is proposed.

With respect to building height, it is clear that not a single resident of Garden City (or of Mineola, for that matter) will be able to see this building from his or her home. It is difficult to understand how an unseen building can cause "outrage." Also, although you were quick to point out that the project is nine stories, you clearly missed the fact that the building is not as tall as the building directly across the street in Garden City - 240 Old Country Road - which, although having six stories, is taller than the proposed project. The proposed project will not "loom" over the surrounding structures and will, in fact, fit in nicely with the area's structures.

The project has been embraced by our business community as essential to our continued efforts to revitalize our downtown business district. Currently, the area lacks pedestrian traffic on weekends and in the evening. Adding a residential component to Mineola's downtown not only will make the area safer, it will also spur development and retail growth.

With respect to the possible cumulative impacts of the project which could result in a "slide to urbanization", it is clear that there are no other sites of this nature in Mineola and the only potential site for redevelopment is the former Keyspan Building. Hardly justification for "outrage."

Most importantly, rather than needlessly frightening the good residents of Garden City with unsubstantiated rhetoric, perhaps a more analytical ap-proach would be appropriate including an analysis of what the developer can build on the site as a matter of right - a commercial office building - and the clear implications to traffic and congestion that such a development would bring to the area. Residential development, even as dense as the one proposed, close to mass transit, is less of an impact than another commercial office building on the Old Country Road corridor. Our village planner, Garden City's planner, and the devel-oper's planner all agree on this point. We were presented with a choice between a residential development as proposed or another commercial office building. - when viewed in this light the choice is clear. Mineola's Village Board understood that when it voted unanimously to approve the application. Not having attended even one of the three hearings, you would not have understood this absent having contacted us for comment and discussion which, again, you did not do.

Lastly, your parking analysis is again wrong. The project will have 430 below grade parking spots in addition to the 273 parking spots to be provided across from the project on the north side of Third Street. There is a dearth of parking in the area and the additional parking is not only welcomed, but clearly necessary. The advantage to our downtown and the surrounding area is obvious.

Let's understand one thing. Cooperation and good-neighborliness form a two-way street. Mineola has worked co-operatively with Garden City for these many years and continues to do so. Mineola advised Garden City of the Winston project early on, provided full documentation of the project and invited comments and input. What was the result? No dialog. No invitation to sit down and talk about the project. No interest in hearing why the project is important to Mineola - neither from the village nor from your newspaper.

That's not how a good neighbor behaves. It's certainly not how a responsible newspaper should.

Sincerely,

Jack M. Martins, Mayor

Incorporated Village

of Mineola

Thanks For Donations

To the Editor:

The Andy Foundation would like to thank the Pear Tree, located at 169 7th St. for their generous donation of merchandise for The Andy Foundation Fifth Annual Yard Sale to be held May 10, 2008.

Support of local merchants like the Pear Tree , Culinary Hts. , Garden City Pizza, Leo's, Walk Street, Uptown Grill and The Town Meat Market is greatly appreciated and helps The Andy Foundation in its mission of helping children less fortunate than most. Please continue to support these local businesses as their generosity extends to many wonderful charities in addition to The Andy Foundation.

Flyers with more information regarding The Andy Yard Sale may be picked up at Culinary Hts, Town Meat Market or The Pear Tree.

The Andy Foundation