The Fate Of

St. Paul's

To The Editor:

The trustees meeting on July 17th provided the residents of Garden City with their first look at the report of the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's. I would first like to commend Trustee Mauk, and at present Trustee Lamberti, for chairing the Mayor's Committee and all the other members involved in this very time consuming and thought provoking process.

The meeting provided those present with the report and an overview to the chargin of some of the residents present, especially the members of the very vocal committee to save St. Paul's. They just don't seem to get it. The facts and figures are now available for all to see but they continue to form a line at the microphone waiting for their chance to knock the report and the people who spent a lot of time putting it together because it just doesn't fit into their ideology. Unfortunately it was the type of demeanor in the past that forced all of us to accept parkland designation for St. Paul's. The result of this designation, along with the high cost of historic preservation, can now be seen in this report that shows that only a very few developers were willing to take on such a chancy project and that the land value appraisal to develop this property to its "highest and best use" is a negative $11.2 to $14.1 million dollars because of the nature of the property's status.

The report shows that the AvalonBay's proposal is just good for AvalonBay but not for the Village of Garden City. The only other options appear to be demolition or mothballing. The estimated cost of demolition is $5.8 million or $700,000 a year on a 10 year bond and about $13.9 million for mothballing the building or $1.2 million per year on a 15 year bond plus an additional $200,000 per year at current rates, just for heating, maintenance, insurance and security to maintain an uninhabitable building with no viable or cost effective plan for the future.

So let's face facts and start thinking about what's best for all the residents or at least the majority of us. Trustee Brudie's statement at the end of the meeting, I believe reflects what most of us feel now and that is, "God is not making any more green space here in Garden City," so let us return it to its former natural splendor for all to enjoy for generations to come."

Bob Orosz

Focus On Common Goal

To the Editor:

The July 11th issue of this paper carried a letter from Peter Negri indicating that the Committee to Save St. Paul's set out specific goals regarding the preservation of the Main Building at St. Paul's in its response to the Village's RFP.

Mr. Negri wrote, in part, that CSSP sought the "redevelopment of the historic building site with the following goals in mind: maintaining village control; benefits for residents inside and outside the building; true historic preservation of the building.....and lastly, to accomplish the above at an affordable and reasonable cost to taxpayers."

We agree wholeheartedly with those goals and set out those same goals in our response to the Village RFP. And both before and after AvalonBay received conditional approval of its redevelopment plan last October, we have been working with the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's -and with the input of residents from across the village - to refine our proposal to achieve those goals to the highest degree possible.

I don't think we're as far apart in achieving these common goals as some may think.

With the AvalonBay proposal the village owns and controls the property; village resident's benefit from both the exterior and interior preservation at no cost to the village; the building is saved and preserved under strict federal and state mandates; and the preservation is accomplished while generating tens of millions of dollars in revenues for the village. At the same time the burden on taxpayers for heating and maintaining an empty building is eliminated.

The only crucial difference at this point is that AvalonBay has placed on the table a refined proposal that eliminates the need for any out-of-pocket expenditure of village funds to support our preservation and redevelopment plan.

The AvalonBay proposal also calls for expending $54 million on a self-funded restoration of St. Paul's that will be governed by all of the mandated federal and state historic preservation requirements. By self funding the project a significant financing risk is eliminated; an important community asset will be saved before it deteriorates further; and it will be put on the tax rolls for the first time.

In his letter, Mr. Negri failed to point out that the Canus/Committee to Save St. Paul's RFP response was withdrawn from village consideration before a side-by-side comparison of the response with the AvalonBay RFP response could be released publicly. Perhaps it was withdrawn because it required multi-year payments by the village to help cover the cost of preserving the building.

With all of our outreach since last October - some 30 meetings around the village - we have sought to bring as much transparency as possible to our ideas and plans, and the feedback from village residents has been very helpful in shaping the revised proposal.

The details of AvalonBay's proposal will be available on a special Web site, www.AvalonatStPauls.com, and will be the subject of Open House information forums in September.

Having explored every possible use for St. Paul's since 1993, it's time for a decision to be made. To burden village taxpayers with ongoing costs (and who knows what it will cost to keep the heat on in the building in the years ahead) to maintain an empty building or to spend millions to keep it in some kind of suspended state (so called mothballing) only avoids the ultimate decision that must be made.

As in the past, AvalonBay will continue to do its best to adhere to the directions given by the village in shaping its plan for the preservation of St. Paul's while listening closely to village residents.

Isn't it time to focus on the common goal of preserving St. Paul's now for the future? Isn't it time to work together to achieve those common goals before it's too late?

Matthew B. Whalen

Vice President,

Development

AvalonBay Communities, Inc.

St. Paul's Is Dormant

To: The Editor:

In my letter of February 22, 2008 title 'Behaving Badly' which appeared in The GC News, I chastised 'civically', of course, the entire BOT and specifically, the Executive Committee on St. Paul. I accused the Board of bickering, finger pointing, mistrust, flaring tempers, tug of war, politics, undue accusations and many other 'un-civic' adjectives. In my letter, I emphasized that as 'gentlemen' supposedly professionals and highly educated, the members of such Committee should behave differently, reach an agreement on this particular issue and other pending and urgent matters. Additionally, I suggested that in view of allegations of impropriety (apparent conflict of interest), Trustee and Deputy Mayor Mr. John Mauk should resign his position as Chairman and Deputy Mayor and Mr. Lamberti, a proved defender of full transparency and therefore the resident's interest, be appointed to the post. The change, took effect almost immediately and in my letter of March 21st 'Good News', also published in the GC News, I congratulated the Board and Mr. Lamberti in particular. I thought that this matter was done and settled. However, I could not believe my eyes when I saw and read the letter by Mr. Mauk published in the GC News on July 11th seeking publicity and once again, defending Avalon Bay's proposal. One paragraph start textually: 'As for Avalon Bay proposal itself, my own impression is that it is a quality proposal on several accounts' .I was under the impression that this gentlemen resigned from this project. Obviously, politics, with its intrigues, a seat in the Village BOT. image, vote power on issues, etc. etc. is, after all, very powerful and very attractive to some people. Frankly, I thought that by now, the whole St. Paul episode would have been solved, finite, gone, settled and closed. That of course, has proven to be a quixotic thought, an impossible dream. The bickering and conflicting reports continue. After so many years, so many meetings, planning, suggestions, advisers, consultants and public and private criticism, this project is still unresolved. I, and thousands of residents, are asking 'Oh, when...why...what is going on....?. Unfortunately, I have now come to the same conclusion as many of my fellow residents: Tear the 'Ugly Ducking' down ! The status quo is just intolerable. Enough is enough. Our present type of government is malfunctioning. Perhaps it is in need of a overhaul.....? With Avalon Bay, the final expense to be bear by the residents is clear: More taxes. Frankly, and after exhaustive projections and calculations, (parking, traffic, school impact, etc.) I cannot come with any tangible short or long term benefits to the Village nor to the residents. Simply put: The expenses, both monetary and psychological, do not justify the projected cero benefits. Incidentally, I still support and have faith in Mr. Lamberti. Who knows, maybe good things will still happen....?

Antonio Moreno

Listen To The People

To the Editor:

I found Christine Mullaney's letter to the editor rather amusing in the July 11th issue. I understand she is on the EPOA with Mr. Episcopia so she feels the need to defend him but I attend most of the BOT meetings and think she is totally off base. Contrary to her assertions, the residents in the audience are patient to a fault. (And yes, there are times when things get so ridiculous that one has to let out a sigh or two.) Residents sit for hours while a few of the Trustees press forward with their agenda to build a high density RENTAL apartment complex at our beloved St. Paul's. The residents patiently sit week after week at the meetings while awaiting the opportunity to voice their concerns about AvBay to the Trustees and Mayor. The residents who are not on the agenda are not permitted to speak until the very end of the meeting and thus are often not heard until well after 10pm at which point the BOT urges brevity; maddening to say the least! Residents nevertheless continue to show up in droves meeting after meeting to speak on the outside chance that the BOT and Mayor might listen to reason. The BOT are pretending not to hear the public outcry over the AvBay RENTAL development and it is extremely frustrating. The majority of citizens who dare to speak out are opposed to high density RENTAL housing on one of our most valuable assets; shouldn't this be a flaming red flag to these gentlemen? The BOT appears to operate on the notion that there is a "Nixonian" silent majority that favors the AvBay RENTAL development. Perhaps the BOT members and those in favor of AvBay would like to pay the thousands of dollars in taxes that each resident will incur annually if this project moves forward?

There are many of us would like to thank Cathy Wood for not being afraid to speak the truth - it was a breath of fresh air. I also want to make something else very clear-- most of the people who speak out at these meetings are NOT on the Committee to Save St. Paul's (CSSP) nor have they ever been. This is not to say however, that we do not applaud/support their efforts to protect this piece of history. Those of us who attend these meetings are just regular citizens whose only agenda is to protect our own personal financial interests. It is wrong to suggest otherwise and try to demonize anyone who speaks out. I am deeply disturbed by the innuendo that anyone opposed to AvBay must be connected to the CSSP. I for one represent only myself, as do many others. There is no agenda here as Ms. Mullaney implies. Truth be told, the CSSP are true preservationists, while I, on the other hand, would be content to see the building razed so that we can enjoy more green space.

It's time that the Mayor and Trustees stop ignoring the concerns of the residents, who are already overburdened with taxes and that they start protecting our assets. After all, don't they have a fiduciary obligation to do so?

Betsy Andromidas

What Is Your View?

To the Editor:

The AvalonBay/St. Paul's proposal has been released for resident review. The Village Board subcommittee reported the results but made it clear they neither "recommended" nor "supported" the proposal. This is an important time for all residents to get the details and formulate an option before they are asked to vote on the proposal.

The committee also gave information on other options which the Board has discussed in the past, i.e., demolition or mothballing. The implication was that these might be the only other options. I disagree!

In Feb 2004, I presented a proposal to the Village Board which significantly reduced the scope of renovation of the St. Paul's main building. The proposal was to remove the east and west wings of the building and only renovate the main section of St Paul's that faces Stewart Ave for public use. Although not an inexpensive effort, it reduced that size of the building from approximately 130,000 sq ft to 50,000 sq ft. This reduction significantly reduced the costly replacements of windows, roofing, plumbing, electrical and exterior & interior restoration. Unfortunately, the Village Board had no interest in exploring this partial building solution and decided to explore private use of the building.

What are the benefits: (1) it preserves the main facade of the building; (2) it preserves the entire 7 acres surrounding the building for future Village use, e.g., more sporting facilities, more parking, more space for trees and open space; space for a larger community center in the future; (3) it provides for needed community space, e.g., freeing up more space at the library by having meeting rooms at St Paul's, providing for a more comprehensive seniors program, potentially providing the top two floors for Garden City School Administration use (the current administration building is in need of renovation), and the use of the Chapel as a theatre or for other group events.

What are the costs: No effort has been made to estimate these. Estimates were made by some of our consultants in the past, but these are too old to use today. With the updated costs of renovation now available through the recent proposals for private use, it seems like a simple task get estimates for this reduced effort. When residents are able to see what the tax impact would be, then they could make the decision of whether this is something they would like to support.

While the Board waits for feedback on the AvalonBay proposal, I suggest that the Board's subcommittee spend another month's time to determine if this idea is a viable option to consider.

If residents support this idea, now is the time to speak up. Email the Mayor! (MayorPBee@gardencityny.net)

Jon Schwieger

Not Good For GC

To The Editor:

Regarding Trustee John Mauk's letter of July 11th entitled "Comments Misinterpreted," The Board of the Community Liaison Commitee of Garden City finds his remarks vague and confusing as follows:

1. Mr. Mauk stated "Potential economic returns from the project are marginal at best." We assume this refers, as do all his remarks, to the Avalon Bay project. Why, if the returns of this project are marginal at best to our residents are the trustees spending hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars exploring this proposal??? Why not save the property for the use of Garden City residents either as open space or community use???

2. Mr. Mauk stated that "As proposed the redevelopment would also place the building on the tax rolls, although full taxes would not be paid for several years." What Mr. Mauk did not say is that the "several years" without taxes is really twenty plus years that the residents would have to subsidize Avalon Bay because of the tax credits they would receive. When Mr. Mauk refers to when they would be paying taxes, that would be when Avalon Bay has profited millions of dollars from their rent rolls and not paying their share of taxes, they would then sell the buildings and the new owners would pay taxes. This most likely would not occur for many years as they would want to maximize their profits.

3. Mr. Mauk also stated "As for the Avalon Bay proposal itself my own impression is that it is a quality proposal on several accounts." Unfortunately, he does not list any qualities. He continues to state: "The development would require some sacrifices, such as additional development on the property." Translated: There would be a large four-story rental building as well as many more apartments behind the building - indeed an exceedingly dense use. (Avalon Bay has stated these additional buildings are needed to increase their profits); the tenants, workers and visitors' cars would be parked mostly above ground in full view ruining the beauty of this wonderful property - no more bucolic open space; traffic and use of our town services; water, police and sanitation would be greatly increased plus through the tax credits Avalon Bay would receive the renters' children would be attending our school free of charge and the residents of Garden City will be paying for them by an increase in our taxes for many, many years. Can our schools handle all these extra children?? Mr. Mauk is correct - we will have too many many, many sacrifices if we approve this Avalon Bay deal.

The Community Liaison Committee believes it is delusional to state Avalon Bay is good for Garden City - this deal is only good for Avalon Bay. It disturbs us greatly as concerned residents that our Trustees are wasting hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars as well as their time exploring a deal that offers no benefits to Garden City residents and gives our most treasured property away practically "scot free."

The Community Liaison committee firmly believes that Mr. Mauk is not in a position to speak for the many residents of our town if he believes as he stated "I don't perceive there are any realistic options for the building other than demolition." Apparently, he does not really care to explore or listen to other options since he has only been interested in the Avalon Bay proposal for a very, very long time.

The Community Liaison Committee believes this property should remain in our use as parkland with community use fulfilling what the residents voted when they agreed to purchase this beautiful, unreplaceable property in the center of our town.

Rochelle Dowling for the

Board of the Community

Liaison Committee of

Garden City

Conflict Of Interest

To The Editor:

I have made numerous requests to the Mayor of the Village of Garden City to have the meetings of the Board of Trustees televised on the local public access channel. The mayor has rejected my requests. His stated reason has been "I do not like television."

In looking into this matter, I have discovered that the Village of Garden City can have its Board of Trustees' meetings televised on the local public access channel "free of charge".I have learned that in negotiating the cable franchise agreements with Cablevision, it is common for the municipalities to negotiate a 'Franchise Grant' paid by the cable provider which can be used by the municipality to establish broadcasting capabilities. Of course, the franchise grant represents a cost to the cable provider which may be significant.

I recently discovered a fact which may bear upon why the mayor is so against televising the Board of Trustees' meetings (at the service provider's expense, i.e. Cablevision). Our mayor, an attorney, represents Cablevision. Mr. Mayor, don't you think you should have disclosed this conflict of interest?

John F. Chianese

Soccer Rule Change

To the Editor;

I wish to address the recent travel team tryouts held last month by the Centennial Soccer League. I was disappointed for my children, but accepting of the fact, when I learned that one of them was not selected to move to higher level travel team, and another one was not selected for any team. I know they were eager to move to higher caliber level of play then they currently are in. What struck me as odd was that in reviewing the names of the new members for both teams, who were picked for the travel teams ahead of my children, was that I did not recognize most of the names. Being an intramural coach with years of experience of coaching soccer teams in all age's groups for Centennial Soccer, it is rare where I come across a child who I have not coached before. Yet here were several names, on two different age groups, of children who I was unfamiliar with. In asking around the village I discovered that in early June the Directors of Centennial Soccer made a major rule change, one that affects all the children in the village. They discretely modified the league rules to allow non-resident players to join their travel teams, regardless of where the children reside or attend school.

In a time where the Village is evicting the Garden City South little league from the baseball fields on Cherry Valley Avenue due to the demand in the village for additional athletic fields for youth sports, Centennial Soccer is now allowing non-resident players on their travel teams, using village fields. Roster spots filled at the expense of our children, who are also village residents. I take issue with this.

Every year in late August the Centennial league coordinators for level 4 and higher are scrambling trying to find enough parents to volunteer to coach intramural soccer. Once the travel and intramural teams split apart, there is a dearth of parents willing to volunteer their time to coach intramural soccer. This year I will no longer be volunteering my time to the league due to their recent secret change. When I receive the phone call asking for me to volunteer again, my response will be to suggest that the league should try calling parents in Garden City South and Garden City Park. If they want to expand the talent poll to make their teams more competitive, they should be prepared to expand their search for volunteers.

Name Signed But

Withheld Upon Request

County Seat

To The Editor:

In the July 11th issue, read with interest the "Printed By Request" from Mr. Kordes (Village Historian) to County Executive Thomas Suozzi to acknowledge Garden City as host to county government.

The County Seat has been referred to as Mineola because that is its postal delivery, yet there are no longer any county buildings in the village of Mineola. Most of the county office buildings are in Garden City. True, some county services have been moved recently to other communities.

Still, can Garden City be considered the County Seat? People could address their mail noting Garden City then on the next line c /o Mineola, NY 11501 along with the plus 4 zip code addition if known.

Steve Bient