Another Idea

To the Editor:

The St. Paul's "saga" has been raging on and on for well over a decade now. To me, it seems like there's only one way to benefit all sides of this issue. The village needs tax revenue, be it from residences, offices, or retail. The people of this village purchased St. Paul's to make it a part of village life. Avalon is a great developer, with a wonderful track record offering something good for both the village and for LI in general.

What I propose is this...make a swap. Allow Avalon to purchase the current village hall/Police HQ/Fire HQ and demolish or rebuild it as it sees fit. I would also recommend letting them take over the parking lot across the street. Both of these sites should be 3-5 stories of residences/office space with ground floor retail. The retail would offer a great extension of out current downtown, making the experience that much better for resident and visitor alike. The additional residents/office workers downtown would add to the life of the downtown, affording both current and new businesses that many more customers. The tax revenues from the development benefit us all. The developer would be required to build either underground or above ground (garage) parking for both the new residents/office workers and for village shoppers. I would additionally propose the sale of the current senior center as well as the library to raise further funds. In place of the current, tired library, either offices or residences (maybe 3 stories) could be built with ground floor retail, again for the same reasons listed previously. The money generated from the sale of the site, as well as the new tax revenue should more than allow for construction of a new village hall, police HQ, fire HQ, as well as senior and youth centers and a library. This arrangement would also offer much less hassle and much greater return for any developer.

I believe this would open up a whole new world. A better, more tax revenue generating downtown. A better, more beautiful village center, where a village center belongs. It would also preserve ALL of St. Paul's and allow, I'm sure, for a number of grants and preservation funds since the use of the building will benefit the entire village. It would also, most likely, not cause any problems with the current parkland designation.

Sure, the plans would have to be laid out and the numbers would have to be worked out, but I think this is a "no brainer" all around. Everyone, literally, would benefit. I truly can't see a problem with this. I have sent this idea to the mayor and Sen. Hannon, but have not heard back of yet. I have received positive initial feedback from the CSSP, including Maureen Traxler. I would love to hear my neighbor's thoughts, too. I have set up an email, downtowngc@gmail.com. Please, let me know what you think. Better yet, if you like the idea, please tell the Committee to Save St. Paul's, the Board of Trustees (especially Mayor Bee), and Senator Hannon.

I think if we put our minds to it, we can make this plan work, and work for everyone and not just a chosen few.

Bill Sweeney

Hurdle Must Be Considered

To the Editor:

The practiced incompetence of successive boards of trustees dealing with hysteric preservation of an old school building is disgraceful, and is costing us a bundle. Some years ago a 'Mayor's Committee' was appointed, purportedly to study the best possible project options and assist the board in measuring public support for various proposals. After too much time comparing proposals, the committee settled on the proposal of a listed company, a block of whose stock was reportedly owned by the committee chairperson's employer, who did not disclose a circumstance that on its face manifestly affects impartiality and independence. Following disclosure, the chairperson recused himself from the committee but, though still conflicted, nevertheless continues to speak publicly on this lopsided proposal.

Then a new chairperson took over the blue-ribbon committee and with great fanfare promised weekly meetings until this chaotic situation is wrestled to the ground. Although instructed to identify the best possible project options to assist the board in measuring public support, and the chairperson's admission that parkland alienation is a definite hurdle, the committee's report did not examine the parkland alienation and its financial ramifications. Whether the board did not adequately define the scope of the committee's task, or whether the committee did not understand or did not want to or care to understand its job, or did not request clarification of the objective of its assignment, the board, after wasted years of intense superficial study, accepted the committee's incomplete report, thereby furnishing the pretext to outsource decision-making to consultants and delay decision for another year, or two, or more. As for the value of the committee's report without consideration of the parkland alienation: Montes pariunt, ridiculus mus nascitur. In the vernacular, garbage in, garbage out.

The chairperson reportedly said village counsel 'will look into the parkland alienation in greater detail if the board acts favorably on the Avalon deal.' How can the board move the deal forward without first considering the parkland alienation? Handing over this matter to village counsel is a problem not a solution. When [Mayor] Miller engineered the hasty passage of the parkland designation of this 48-acre site at two separate meetings in 2004, it did not appear this ill-conceived self-serving action was supported by a publicly available legal opinion certifying the authority of the board of this incorporated village to transfer this substantial asset to the state without voter approval, without consideration, without violating the judgment, and without deliberately thwarting residents' desire for tax and other revenue from this property. Does anyone recall village counsel speaking out on what is probably the largest village real property acquisition in its history, paid for with voter authorized bonds, and its alienation to the state - another dysfunctional government - eleven years later without consideration and without voter authorization? A legal opinion should have been publicly issued and studied before the board's votes, but for reasons best known to the then mayor and counsel, who may have been distracted by other concerns, it does not appear the legal authority for, and the financial and other consequences of parkland designation - intended to make commercial development impossible - were explained to residents in a reasoned legal opinion.

Present ignorance (er, dispute) concerning the requirements to remove the parkland designation demonstrates conclusively that the board and counsel violated their fiduciary obligation to residents to examine the consequences of their reckless votes at separate meetings in 2004. Otherwise, why would the committee only now 'look into the parkland designation in greater detail?' (To solve the problem, trustees who voted for parkland should transfer the titles to their multiple residences to the state in exchange for release of the parkland encumbrance.) A fresh 'look into the parkland designation in greater detail' warrants a thorough audit and examination of the matter ab initio by different counsel not conflicted by any circumstance, economic or personal. Let the chips fall where they may.

Any dream this property can be developed commercially without gouging residents is self-delusion. After 14 years of inept governance, it's time for adults to take charge. We deserve better.

J. J. Dolan

Say No To

Avalon Bay

To the Editor:

The Stephanie Mariel Petrellese article, "Parkland Alienation: A Major Obstacle," in the August 8 2008, Garden City News states that, despite all the expensive efforts of the Village Trustees, which seem directed ultimately at choosing Avalon Bay as the one and only viable option for St. Paul's, parkland alienation to accomplish this objective is an almost insuperable impediment to overcome.

It seems incredible to me that this obstacle received little or no attention from the Trustees before their spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants and studies which in the end favor private use of a facility that we voted for, for public use! The Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's, according to Second Deputy Mayor Lamberti (through no fault of his own) had not examined the parkland alienation problem or its financial ramifications because this was not in the Committee's "initial charge." A second reason was that avoiding the parkland issue might develop the best possible options, and a third reason was "to assist the Board of Trustees in measuring public support." I question the logic of those reasons.

If it is a fait accompli that the St. Paul's property is parkland to be used by the public and if changing its status to allow private development is legally almost impossible, why risk the residents' tax dollars by spending so much money on studies and a proposal that seems to be a fool's errand? Further, the Petrellese article reports that Michael A. Cioffa who is an attorney representing the Committee to Save St. Paul's and who is a member of the highly reputable firm of Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, indicates that the idea of exchanging parkland designation for preservation of the Historic Main Building is most likely not viable legally and therefore not acceptable to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation "because the facade would be restored for a private residential purpose and not for use by the public." Avalon Bay's token suggestion that the chapel could be used for public purposes once a week does not count for public use (from my perspective and the perspective of many of my neighbors in the Estates section)!

The only conclusion I can come to from the Petrellese article and the Cioffa statement is that the Mayor and several of the Trustees have put "the cart before the horse" for their own unstated reasons. I can infer from this seemingly illogical behavior that our Village government may very well be ignoring the legal realities of parkland alienation as well as the views of most Village residents who do not want to be stuck with higher taxes for a gargantuan rental facility with more children burdening our school district (whose parents would not be paying taxes to support the schools because they are renting), and this rental project would be located in an area already afflicted by heavy traffic across from and nearly adjacent to the Garden City Middle School.

We as residents have nothing to gain and everything to lose in the Avalon Bay project, but every indication from our Village government shows that "the fix is in." Antonio Moreno's letter in the August 8, 2008, Garden City News is in full agreement with my own views. He wonders why Trustee Mauk, who recused himself from the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's continues to publicly support the proposal when his recusal attempted to allay fears of his alleged conflict of interest vis a vis the Avalon Bay project. His continued public statements about Avalon Bay seem to undermine his recusal (which I originally thought was honorable of him). To really fulfill the expectations of his recusal, he should also not vote on the project. I join Antonio Moreno in his shock and bewilderment at Trustee Mauk's continued vocal support of Avalon Bay.

Although I admire St. Paul's historic and architectural importance, I now join Antonio Moreno in supporting demolition rather than have the tax-creating burden of Avalon Bay foisted on already heavily taxed Village residents. After all, as Mr. Moreno states, it is no Versailles Palace and if we recall from history, the amount of money spent on Versailles Palace was one of the reasons French taxpayers eventually began the French Revolution!

Besides, the additional apartments in back of the current building would result in preservation of the facade only while bastardizing the rear architecture which is visible from the north.

Yet several of our Village leaders are ignoring the long-term effects of their Avalon Bay dreams. Demolition would relieve us of further financial burdens as well as offer Garden City more green space, which would enhance the health of the environment rather than increasing pollution and danger to our children, which would result from increased traffic in an area where children, parents, teachers, school staff, school administrators, and coaches congregate.

Senator Kemp Hannon, I am positive, will not propose legislation to transform parkland into an enormous apartment project that would burden us with higher taxes, pollution, and more traffic as well as increased danger to our children, simply to gain a bastardized preservation of St. Paul's. Senator Hannon can see, for example, that the majority of letters to the editor of The Garden City News display the public's serious reservations and/or opposition to the risky Avalon Bay proposal, despite the one-sided approach of some of our Village Trustees in appearing to favor and laud this project. Therefore, since anyone, including Senator Hannon, can perceive the lack of consensus or downright opposition to this proposal, how can he propose parkland alienation legislation under these circumstances, particularly when opposition exists in Albany as well? Fellow citizens, let us not forget the Care Matrix debacle. I see history repeating itself. Let's "get real" and end this farce by demolishing St. Paul's and adding more parkland, rather than taking it away by building many rental units which will burden us with more taxes.

Like Antonio Moreno, I too thought I had finally written my last anti-Avalon Bay letter a while ago; however, after reading Mr. Moreno's letter and after noting Avalon Bay's proposed schedule of upcoming information (I think publicity is more like it) events, I have had enough. Let's just say no to Avalon Bay by voting in an objective manner with a secret ballot on Avalon Bay-- up or down. We live in a democracy, not a monarchy or feudal state. This is not the Middle Ages. We need to vote! We don't want the few to decide in opposition to the views of many. If we defeat the Avalon Bay proposal, we can then go on and vote on other options; demolition or fund-raising for public use, depending on the will of the tax-paying Village residents. We can then make America be America again!

Francis N. Elmi, Ph.D.

Re-Think Speaker

To The Editor:

It seems as though Senator Schumer is invited here to be a guest speaker at the high school graduation ceremony almost every year. This year proved to be no different. I wonder if many of the residents, and especially the administration are aware of the comments made earlier in the year by Mr. Schumer on the floor of the senate. They are as follows: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here." Is the author of this statement the person you want to speak to the families of graduates? We have many fine people in this community who are currently serving their country or who have served in the past. Do Mr. Schumer's remarks lend respect to all of those Garden City residents who have given their lives for their country? While he was making these kinds of statements, my son was in Anbar Province providing security to the citizens of that country under conditions that Mr. Schumer could never survive under. I would hope that out of respect for those who have graduated from the Garden City educational system who have served our country in the past, and are currently serving, the people responsible for inviting Mr. Schumer back would re-think their choice for future ceremonies.

Nancy McDonald

P.S. I left messages with the principal and asst. principal at the high school and did not receive a reply.