St. Paul's Preservation? Rubbish!

To the Editor:

I read with great trepidation the color brochure AvalonBay sent us detailing their desire to save St. Paul's and touting their success at Danvers as a victory for historic preservation.

The Danvers State Hospital in Massachusetts is a former 77-acre institution that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places theoretically offering it some protection from the wrecking ball. The centerpiece of the facility was the circa 1870s Victorian Gothic-style Kirkbride building. Unfortunately, local preservationists were defeated and the politicians caved in by selling the site to a developer. AvalonBay was granted some 35 demolition permits subsequently tearing down two-thirds of the original Kirkbride building keeping the façade of the remaining building while the interior was gutted and re-built. Local Danvers archivist Dick Trask described the decapitation of the original roof structure with all its Gothic Revival towers and turrets and 30 courses of brick as something deemed "appropriate" by the developer. Trask likened the preservation of the remaining portion of Kirkbride to a "mounted deer head." (see website: www.danvers-state-ia.com/home.html) AvalonBay's Vice-President at Danvers, Scott Dale, said the decision to save only a section of the building was dictated in large part by cost, but also was dictated by design considerations. Sound familiar? In addition, AvalonBay demolished nearly 40 Gothic-style structures including staff houses, patient dorms and chapels replacing them with new construction apartment and condominium buildings. Last year, The Danvers project suffered a massive fire destroying much of the new construction while sparing the remaining part of the Kirkbride building. It begs the question-what would happen to our property should St. Paul's be destroyed or deemed beyond repair? Would AvalonBay be permitted to tear down St. Paul's and replace it with new construction?

Let's realize what this is: AvalonBay, a developer of high density RENTAL apartments will realize maximum profit by receiving a free building, free land, re-sellable historic tax credits, an essentially rent-free ground lease and reap hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of rental income during the 99-year lease. A great real estate deal for AvalonBay but not in the best interest of Garden City!

What will we get? A building façade with a gutted interior, a large 117 car surface parking lot (not including visitor and staff parking), increased population density, increased traffic, over-crowded schools, potentially dangerous traffic situation (read Mayor Bee's message in the Garden City News to be mindful of our children at the St. Paul's athletic fields), additional stresses on our police, fire, water-sewer departments and loss of control of our property for 99 years! Garden City does not have a depressed downtown and we don't require 'smart growth.' (Not that this in any way reflects the principles of smart growth) Yes, I realize there has been some discussion regarding an upfront village payment, upgrades to Feringa Fieldhouse and Cluett Hall, and potential Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). This would be a small price for AvalonBay to pay in exchange for such a valuable property.

Are we going to wake up like the residents and trustees of Oyster Bay who mounted a grassroots effort to turn away AvalonBay or will we allow our apathy to have this disastrous project proceed as in Danvers? We purchased this property in 1993 for our public use in an effort to keep it out of developer's hands. If this earlier vision of utilizing the St. Paul's building for resident's use cannot be realized then tear it down and create more green space. Say 'No' to AvalonBay and later generations will thank us for it.

R.W. Lenhart

Not In Taxpayers' Interest

To the Editor:

Our Village has a long and beneficial history of Real Estate Development, involving both Village properties and private properties within the Village. A few examples are: Bloomingdale's/Sears, Lord and Taylor, Saks, The Garden City Hotels, The Wyndham, Pendaflex, Doubleday, and many others of substance. All provided certain clear benefits.

First, by buying or leasing the relevant properties, they brought new streams of income, which have been used for the common good.

Second, they have been professionally melded with the existing infrastructure, with careful consideration of traffic patterns, especially including student safety.

Thirdly, all such projects have been taxed at their real value, providing welcome and, sadly, much needed relief to the Village taxpayers. This has been the most weighty inducement for Village approval of development projects.

We now have a new development project, involving the old St. Paul's property, being promoted by interested parties. There are some noticeable differences in philosophy.

The promoters want to lease the property to the developer at no significant cost, a gift of some 14 million dollars in taxpayer assets.

The promoters believe that the traffic and safety aspects of the location are not a problem. (The intersection of two of our busiest roads, one only yards from our Middle school, and the other a feeder to our High School.)

Lastly, the promoters seem to agree that the developer will not have to make any significant tax payments to the Village for 35 years. The Taxes due on the property will have to be paid by the village taxpayers for that period. (Tens of millions of dollars.)

All of the first mentioned property developments involved exchanges of value. The developers and the Village mutually benefited. This latest proposition benefits only the developer. How can this be?

The answer is inescapable. The promoters have concluded that retaining the brooding facade of the school is of psychic value to our taxpayers to the tune of perhaps as much as 30 or 40 million dollars. Where did that idea come from? Certainly not from the taxpayers.

In the poll on this matter taken a few years ago, 77% of the respondents declared that they did not want any additional taxes for the privilege of retaining the building. Applied to the village population, that's over 15,000 taxpayers. 25% of the respondents were willing to have the building razed. That would be over 5,000 taxpayers. Someone is out of step here.

It seems to me that the appropriate role for the people who have volunteered to represent the taxpayer interests is to check carefully with them as to their perceived interests, and then carry them out, unless they are truly incompetent. Looking only to their own views and interests is simply not acceptable. What do you think?

Frank Kiernan

Saving St. Paul's The Smart Way!

To The Editor:

Here's a smart business plan to save St. Paul's:

1. Convert the St. Paul's site in to a newly built, modern, state-of-the art GCHS;

2. In building the new GCHS, save key elements of the existing St. Paul's building as an architectural treasure to be enjoyed by the community in perpetuity;

3. After the new GCHS opens, tear down the old GCHS;

4. Sell off the old GCHS site in one acre building lots, thus providing many more high quality, tax-paying , homes (as was done with the former St. Mary's school property) for current and future generations to live in

5. Convert the considerable sale price received for the lots at the old GCHS site to bond reduction on the new GCHS, greatly reducing the cost of the new GCHS

This proposal:

1. Saves St. Paul's

2. Provides the community a wonderful new GCHS at reduced cost

3. Adds new homes to the permanent tax rolls

William T. Brown