Transparency

And Truth

To the Editor:

Last night those who attended the Garden City Village Board of Trustees meeting had another chance to witness the distortion undertaken by Mayoral Candidate Thomas Lamberti and his friends in their goal to prevent the residents of Garden City from ever having finality when it comes to St. Paul's, unless that finality is exactly what they want.

Regrettably, I have found it necessary to write this letter because I, like our esteemed Trustee Lamberti, would like to have full transparency. Except that I actually will disclose what occurred between the POA presidents in our meetings regarding a potential poll regarding the future of St. Paul's. Trustee Lamberti decided he would play to his audience by attacking the 2 POAs (Estates and East) who refused to play along with his game. I will assume that Trustee Brudie decided to 'pile on" out of any actual knowledge of many of the true circumstances.

At the request of the Board of Trustees, the 4 POA presidents met to come up with the format and questions to gauge public opinion on the Mayor's Committee Report and the Avalon Bay proposal. There was no formal written submission to us and no formal statement from anyone as to how to get residents' opinions or what to specifically ask. Clearly the guidepost was the Mayor's Committee Report on St. Paul's. Remember, this was the Report submitted by the Mayor's Committee headed by Trustee Lamberti.

The East, West and Estates were fairly in agreement that the starting point was the 3 options from the Mayor's Report. The three options are the Avalon Bay proposal, demolition or mothball. The East and Estates were in agreement that mothball - as stated in the Report - was a waste of time. The West was hesitant and less committed than the East and Estates but was open to further discussion. None of us had any issues with further consideration of the various positions.

From moment one it was clear that the Central - Trustee Lamberti's POA - would not agree to anything other than yes or no on Avalon Bay. They wanted no other questions. It was my belief - as I have stated to anyone I discuss this matter with - that the people in the Village who are sick and tired of the issue and do not want to pay anymore taxes to maintain the building should have a right to voice that opinion. Further, the Report included demolition as an option.

So for Trustee Lamberti and others to claim that the East and Estates "violated the JCC agreement" by not compromising is a bunch of baloney. Trustee Lamberti, was, as usual, grandstanding. It was his POA that refused to compromise on anything.

After the second meeting, the East, West and Estates agreed to go back to the Trustees - yes contrary to Mr. Lamberti's assertions last night - we went back to the Trustees - to ask them if they would tell us what question or questions or format they wanted us to ask. It was Central who asked the other 3 POAs if we would go back to the Trustees - and the other 3 POA presidents agreed. At that meeting, I explicitly asked Central if they would refuse to participate if the poll was not configured as it wanted it. Central would not state either way.

Mr. Dennis Donnelly - as head of the Joint Conference Committee of the POA Associations, advised the Mayor we were having trouble coming to a consensus and that the 4 POAs had agreed to ask the Trustees if they would give us any specific wording or more guidance. The Mayor advised several - maybe all - of the other Trustees and they started to work on it.

Trustee Lamberti was well aware of this - for him to claim this came out of the blue and he was shocked to learn about it - stretches all credibility. I admit that I should have stood up at the Village meeting last night and challenged Mr. Lamberti on his version of the facts and his fallacious statements, but forgive my decision to be polite at the time.

Before the Trustees could agree on wording - the Central POA decided to act on its own to try to influence the poll. It sent a letter to the Trustees for public dissemination, which forced Mayor Bee to put it on the agenda for that meeting even though the Trustees had not come to any consensus and had not met together to discuss the wording or format. At that next Trustee meeting - the Central POA President stood up and read Central's letter. Then - Peter Negri - who heads the Committee to Save St. Paul's - stood up and discussed an item that he could not have known about unless the President of the Central POA told him. He is not even on the Board of the Central POA. So how did he know that - one can only surmise that the Central POA is controlled by the Committee.

So it was Central that acted on its own - not the rest of us. They tried to force the issue because it was not getting its own way.

Because Central openly challenged the still being negotiated poll questions - the rest of us were forced to disclose our then current positions. We were not going to do so at that time - as we were waiting for the Board of Trustees to advise us if they could or would actually give us some formal poll language.

So then the 4 POA presidents met again. The East, West and Estates POA presidents were in agreement - and told Central - that Central had acted prematurely and it was not the right thing to do while we were still negotiating a compromise.

At that meeting (our third) it also became more apparent that Central was not going to change - the Central POA President told us Central would only participate in the poll if the question was Avalon Bay yes or no and it would not agree to any other questions. West stated that it would not participate if the poll was a pick one - Avalon Bay or Demolish format. West wanted a separate mothball question and maybe even preferred an Avalon Bay yes or no format. So West declined to participate too.

At the end of that meeting, the West POA asked if we were going to meet again. Mr. Donnelly explicitly stated that he did not see the point since all POAs had established their positions. Further, both Mr. Donnelly and I stated that since the 4 POAs could not come to a mutual agreement, the East and the Estates were going to go forward with a poll - paid for by themselves and invite everyone in the Village to participate.

For Trustee Lamberti to attack the East and Estates POAs as "rogue" POAs is incredible to me. It was his POA which was highly involved (not officially of course!!) with the recent attempt to have one of the Estates' Village Trustee positions taken over in a secret ballot campaign by a resident of Central!** Where were Trustee Lamberti's statements of incredulousness at that? Where were his statements about "rogue" actions by a POA? Further, as he well knows, the POAs are not subject to any Village governance, and the Trustees had preferred that the POAs do the polling.

Immediately after the Trustees' meeting, the West, East and Estates presidents sought each other out in Village Hall and agreed to meet as soon as possible to try to work on a compromise. The Central made no effort to meet with us. Hopefully it will participate and actually engage in a compromise. I hope that by the time this letter is published the 4 POAs will have come to an agreement. We'll see who are the true "rogues".

Brian C. Daughney,

President

Estates Property

Owners' Association

**(Author's correction and note: The alternative candidate was a resident of the West POA. But my point remains - where was Trustee Lamberti's moral indignation about a violation of, and direct challenge to, the Community Agreement by many of his supporters?)

Advocated A Compromise Plan

To the Editor:

John Mauk's diatribe against the Committee to Save St. Paul's (CSSP) in last week's letters merits a response. On behalf of the Committee and its many supporters, I write to set the record straight.

Mauk's mantra starts and ends with the premise that the AvalonBay give-away is the only "affordable" way to save St. Paul's from demolition. Nothing could be further from the truth. As taxpayers and residents, we have always been sensitive to the need for an affordable solution, and indeed, we proposed such a solution in October 2006 in partnership with Canus Corp. The compromise plan we advocated would have preserved and saved St. Paul's for mixed public and private use, and with a modest infusion of public funds (approximately $100/year per household), the public-private partnership could have created a community centerpiece for our residents.

Regrettably, the plan submitted by CSSP and Canus was shot down, ostensibly because Canus couldn't guarantee unsubordinated financing, and AvalonBay was chosen as the favored developer. But as residents learned soon thereafter, Mauk's employer had close business ties to AvalonBay, the Village's main consultant (K. Backus) also had business ties to Avalon, and the terms of the Avalon deal kept getting worse and worse for the Village and for its residents.

It's no surprise, therefore, that CSSP and its supporters oppose Mauk's give-away plan. We continue to believe it is NOT the only feasible solution, short of demolition. Mr. Mauk keeps falsely claiming, over and over, that we favor a "spare no expense" approach, but the truth, which he will not admit, is that affordable solutions have been ignored because of his insistence that St. Paul's can be saved only by giving it away to a private developer.

After more than 15 years of debate and controversy, Mr. Mauk needs to get off his high horse. He apparently believes that the time has passed for "reason and rationality." We disagree. Extreme solutions, involving destructive overdevelopment or demolition, are not what the Village needs. We offered a compromise plan that can work. With a modest contribution of Village funds, and a commitment to a true public-private partnership, this community can preserve, pay for, and use our historic Village treasure. Residents deserve nothing less.

Michael A. Ciaffa

No More Delays

To the Editor:

For years people have written letters to the editor asking that they have the opportunity to vote on St. Paul's...it has been 15 years.....it has been studied to death.....finally we have a report from the Mayor's Committee.

For many years, residents have been requesting a village-wide vote. The Board of Trustees, after receiving the report, asked the four property owners' associations to conduct a non-binding poll regarding St. Paul's so the Trustees, who are the ones who must make the decision, will know what the majority of voters in Garden City would like to have happen.

The four presidents met to discuss how to do it and what should be on the ballot. They agreed to have actual voting machines and have the vote in the Field House at St. Paul's. As I understand it, each president went back to his/her POA Board so the individual board members knew what was discussed, and each board member had the opportunity to put in his/her opinion. I am a director in the Estates POA, and I know many emails went back and forth. The East and Estates agreed on two positions: Avalonbay or demolition. They originally were opposed to mothballing because, as was in the Mayor's Report, it is a waste of time and money. Central only wanted AvalonBay - yes or no. West was leaning toward the position of Central and eventually went that way. (East and Estates agreed to put mothballing as a third question in an effort to compromise with Central and West. They wouldn't compromise).

East and West went back to their boards, and the majority vote was that the two POA's, East and Estates, would pay for the machines and all the residents of Garden City would have the opportunity to vote.

At the Trustees Board meeting on Sept. 11th, the president of Central POA asked that the Board of Trustees disavow the village wide poll to be held by the Eastern and Estates Property Owners Associations, planned for Oct. 7th, 2008, on a proposal to accept the AvalonBay proposal or choose demolition.

This was put on the agenda as a motion by Trustee Lamberti who then characterized the two POA's as "rogue" associations - running off on their own, etc. Trustee Brudie said the two POA's were acting illegally. And much else was said. I guess they forgot that it was the Trustees who asked the POA's to do this and who wouldn't give them guidance as to what should be on the ballot.

The issue of St. Paul's has torn this community apart. Having only one question - AvalonBay - yes or no, which Central and Save St. Paul's Committee is demanding, will only end up with yes, we want it, or no we don't. If it is no we don't, Garden City is back where it has been for 15 years. This is a clever delaying tactic because it means an automatic mothballing which will cost the taxpayers $13.9 million.

All three questions should be on the ballot to give ALL THE RESIDENTS of Garden City the right to an opinion. Why should we bow to a small, vocal group willing to spend lots of money to do what it wants. Let ALL the people speak. We all live in this community and should have the right to partake in a REAL opinion poll.

The time has come - no more delays!

Jerie Newman

Is It Worth It?

To the Editor:

Since the long lived question of the destiny of our favorite architectural relic finally seems to be approaching its well deserved end, and since one possible outcome might be demolition, I decided to take a deliberate ride, going east, past St. Paul's, just to firm up my memories. I know pretty well what it looks like, as my family has been here for three generations, but I planned to focus sharply, to fill in any fuzzy details. Different from most highly valued old buildings, this one is not central to village life, and is normally only viewed by passing by in a car, through perhaps our busiest intersection.

I found some things that surprised me, but maybe that's just me.

The stoplight that provides viewing opportunity lasts about 40 seconds. As the traffic lines condense, the leading cars have around 30 viewing seconds, and the latter ones maybe 10 seconds. (Quick concentration is strongly advised.) I was shocked to notice that from the first 20 or so cars in line, there is no significant view of the building. The handsome thicket of some 40 trees, most mature, but many with much growth ahead, obscure almost all of the building. One is aware of some of the lower level rust colored stone, but through the fully leafed canopies, almost nothing is visible. If the line of cars waiting for the light to change reaches 30 or so, the rearmost can see some of the western part of the building, but not much. If your car is in the south lane, and there are cars to your left, you can't see a thing. Going from east to west, when the light changes, there is no opportunity to view anything.

Since the only ingredient of value to the village taxpayers, in return for their largess to Avalon Bay, is the ability to (adoringly?) view the southern wall of St. Paul's, this seems like thin gruel, indeed. Could it be that villagers never look at the building, but are satisfied with recollection?

Since there will be a straw poll vote sometime soon, which may be considered by the trustees, it might be a decent idea for interested taxpayers to replicate my brief journey. Trustees and members of CTSSP might well do the same. If precious memories have remained steadfast over the years even without visibility, what's the need, or the point, in giving away hard earned equity?

Frank Kiernan

Referendum Debacle

To the Editor:

Residents should be ready to accept the fate that St. Paul's will soon be under the control of Avalon Bay via a proposed non-binding referendum. The key to the referendum will be the questions asked and the subsequent analysis of the votes by our BOT who will most likely endorse the Avalon Bay proposal regardless of the actual outcome. The charge is led by John Mauk who continues to aggressively advocate for AB even after he resigned as chairman of the internal committee on St. Paul's. Arrogance on his part would be an understatement of epic proportions.

The vote should consist of one and only one question, i.e., Accept the AB proposal - YES or NO as this is the issue at hand. Listing more than this question will muddy the waters to avoid seeing the negative side of the AB plan. I strongly believe the BOT should clearly state how they will interpret the results prior to the actual vote. Absent that, why waste our money and time as they will surely disregard the voice of the people. Remember their trump card is the non-binding tag. I wouldn't be surprised if they use the old coin flip "Heads I win", "Tails you lose" adage. For example, if the vote tabulation is 55% - 45% rejecting AB the BOT in its infinite wisdom will state it is not decisive enough therefore we will accept the AB proposal - "Heads I win." Conversely, if the vote tabulation is 55%- 45% approving AB they will state the majority support it therefore we will accept the AB proposal - "Tails you Lose."

If and when this takes place our resident state senator who in the past has adopted the "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mantra on one of the most important issues this Village has ever faced will be forced to make a decision. Now there's an epiphany! Maybe Mr. Hannon was a former Trident submariner who truly believes in their motto, "We hide with pride" as they silently submerge for long periods of time eschewing contact with outside sources.

I recommend that before the process is finalized to call your POA'S and demand accountability from your respective representatives, as we will soon be stuck with a never-ending nightmare.

Michael L. Ryder

Put Money

Where Mouth Is

To the Editor:

It is time for the Committee to Save St. Paul's (CSSP) and its supporters to put their money where their mouths are. In the absence of any recent proposals from them, this is how they can do it:

· The Village will stop providing any operating funds for the maintenance and repair of the building (currently costing about $200K/year)

· The Village will establish an account for donations from any interested parties for items including heat, boiler replacement, roof repairs, security everything except fire protection and grounds maintenance

· The CSSP will collect and forward funds to this Village account

· The Village will continue actual maintenance and repair and advise the CSSP of any emergency repairs required so they can solicit extra funds to cover them

· The building will be maintained to the extent that funds are available

· With funds from extra-generous donors (Mr. Kenny comes to mind) perhaps even a small portion of the building can be brought to code for public use.

This should satisfy both the wishes of the CSSP to "save" the building without the help of Avalon Bay and those in the Village who do not want to spend more tax money on it. To the extent that the CSSP cannot cover the costs, the building will be left to crumble into a European-style ruin.

Of course, for their $50M investment Avalon Bay could make the building last a little longer, be more useful, and eventually provide some tax money to the Village as well. That seems to be the better option.

Bill Bellmer

Not A Choice

To the Editor:

It is sad to see "Trustee" Mauk's rant in the GC News. In his benevolence, he is giving us only two choices for St. Paul's - either Avalon Bay or rip the building down. There are no choices here - it's better if there is no vote whatsoever.

Avalon Bay's proposal is a grand swindle just as bad as the Indians selling Manhattan Island. The "Trustees" independent judgment leaves so much in question. There is no doubt many will benefit namely Avalon Bay and their subcontractors and vendors will, not the taxpayers of Garden City.

This is a fatal mistake and there is no doubt that this mess will bring the Village down and ruin our great community. If this is done the Trustees and any other duly elected government officials so favoring this unlike before will be absolutely held to account!!!

God Bless GC.

Don Pfail

Base Opinion

On Facts

To the Editor:

Having attended the monthly Board of Trustees meetings over the past year while closely following the St Paul's issue, I am amazed at how many residents continue to believe that a better solution than Avalon Bay exists for the overall benefit of all tax payers of the Village, now and in the future. Further, the fact that these same residents and their respective Trustees continue to spew misinformation to them and the public on this same issue is disheartening to say the least. The Village has looked for a solution for 15 years, no one has come forward until now and this is the best proposal we are going to get.

As far as I know, there is no other proposed means to generate millions of dollars in tax revenue to the village and school district that will be needed during the upcoming years. Aside from the few new homes being built and added to the tax rolls in the Village, this is the only opportunity on the horizon and unless our residents take the time to realize it, this small group will be controlling the issue and we will continue to pay two hundred thousand dollars a year to keep this building standing. Yes, we pay that much for a building that provides no use to any of us!!!

Instead of considering the true facts as to their beloved treasure, the St Paul's building, they have chosen to mis inform the public with regard to the current available proposal from Avalon Bay that would not only restore the building to its glory but at the same time create a much needed tax revenue stream to the village and school district over the next many years. While it is true that the PILOT payments as currently proposed are low, the fact is that anything is better than NOTHING, which is what we are getting now. And we can still negotiate those PILOTS. I challenge Avalon Bay to immediately consider increasing them to cover operating costs during the first 10 years as this seems to be a major hurdle that some residents have yet to get past.

The disappointing offshoot of all of this is that many residents, when asked for an opinion on the St Paul's issue are now of the mindset of "just tear it down already" because this small group of residents has delayed the process for years and everybody is sick and tired of hearing about it and wants finality. Tearing it down would be disappointing considering what we would be giving up from the Avalon Bay proposal.

If all residents would take the time to review the facts as presented to them in the report of the Mayors committee on St Paul's, as well as the responses to questions I posed to the Mayor's Committee, for which a response was printed in the 8/29/08 edition of the GC News, you would have the basis for forming a fact based opinion.

The facts based on the current proposal and information provided from the Mayors Committee are:

1) The village did purchase the St Paul's site for use by its residents. Currently 41 of the 48 acres are used daily by all of us. We never intended to use the main St Paul's Building.

2) Only 7 acres comprise the area that would be leased to Avalon Bay. We would not be losing the use of the athletic fields, The Field House Gymnasium, Cluett Hall, the cottages or any currently legal available parking.

3) We would not be losing any public space. In fact we would gain access to the 2,400 sq ft Chapel that most of us have never seen. This can be used one day a week for meeting or relaxation.

4) It currently costs the Village approximately $200,000.00 per year to maintain the building. In future years millions will need to be spent on the roof to keep the structure sound. The building does not conform to any building or fire codes and is uninhabitable.

5) Since purchasing the property, the Village has not received any tax dollars to support the upkeep of the building.

6) The Avalon Bay proposal is for 108 apartment units. This is not considered a dense housing plan. In fact, at 15 units per acre it would be second to the Cherry valley apartments at 14 units per acre, the least dense in the village.

7) Avalon Bay will not be mandated to set aside 10% of the apartments for affordable housing. In lieu of this, the developer can contribute an agreed upon amount to a fund for other affordable housing projects. We can insist that Avalon Bay do this.

8) For anyone to say we would be losing millions if we accept the Avalon Bay proposal is totally untrue. We cannot lose what we are not currently getting or that is proposed by another developer. Acceptance of the Avalon Bay proposal should be considered and investment today for tax revenue in the future.

9) During the first 35 years of the lease period it is estimated based on current tax rates that we would receive the following tax revenue:

- First 7 years of occupancy - $198,839.00

- Years 10 -20 - $3,381,257.00

- Years 21 -35 - $53,073,812.00

This amounts to total tax revenue to the village of $ 56,653,908.00 vs $0.00 today.

10) Per Trustee Lamberti, Chairman of the Mayors' Committee on St Paul's, The Village does not anticipate the need to increase taxes to provide village services to the Avalon Bay site as existing staffing levels as well as equipment would accommodate the services required under the Avalon Bay proposal. There would however be an increase to the village for disposal cost at the incinerator for rubbish that is generated by the residents at the site. Also, Avalon Bay residents would pay the standard water consumption charges.

11) Per Trustee Lamberti, Chairman of the Mayor's Committee on St Pauls, using the analysis performed by Avalon Bay and Cameron Engineering, which utilized data from the Garden City School district as well as current multi family units in Garden City, they summarized that "Based on data from both Garden City and Avalon Bay properties, Avalon Bay estimates a total of 8 new students from the Avalon Bay property and based on the current year per pupil costs from the GC school budget, estimate a total cost of $170,240.00 per year for these additional students.

12) Traffic - While no study was prepared, we should look to the Wyndham project as an example. It has 315 apartments, three times the size of the Avalon proposal. I urge all to take the time to look at the impact that project had on traffic and you will see it was minimal.

So our choices are to continue funding an uninhabitable building at the cost of approximately $200,000 per year of taxpayer money with guaranteed future costs in the millions while waiting for another solution to preserve the building, that history has shown will not materialize. Or face reality and live with a development company, the only one in 15 years willing to spend in excess of 53 million dollars of its own funds to restore and renovate the St Paul's building so that it can remain as the icon many feel it is at a cost similar to what we are already paying with the guarantee of huge future tax revenues. And as a side note, the proposed site plan looks to be a very appealing plan that when completed would be a complement to the village.

I only hope that when and if residents are provided with the opportunity to voice our opinion on this proposal, that each resident and Trustee takes the time to review the facts vs fiction prior to casting their vote either way and does not simply vote no to Avalon Bay, thinking the problem will go away because it will not. After the proposal is defeated, we will begin the process all over again and then the only options should be to either demolish the building (5.5 million) or mothball it (15 million, plus the 200K annual maintenance), both, as you can see, a tremendous cost to the residents of the village.

Walter McKenna

Say No

To Mothballing

To the Editor:

There are only two viable options for St. Paul's: AvalonBay or demolition. Presenting mothballing as a third option in the upcoming opinion poll is a false choice. It leaves an incorrect impression that there is an undiscovered corporation out there willing and financially capable of restoring St. Paul's to public use in all its former glory. Sadly, no such savior has emerged in 15 years of trying. It is simply financially unfeasible.

In discussing mothballing, the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's stated: "The estimated total for mothballing is $13.9 million, or $1.2 million per year assuming bond financing over a 15-year term at 4%. In the Committee's opinion, spending $13.9 million and paying at least $200,000 a year to maintain an uninhabitable building with no planned future use is a waste of time and money."

That would be our money, the taxpayers of Garden City. Don't support mothballing.

Christine Mullaney

Last Chance

To The Editor:

We have been given one last chance to get it right. Failure to do so will result in the complete loss of all that we believe to be of value. Many will say, so what?

The long Presidential Campaign has been to our advantage, it has given us the opportunity to take a good look at ourselves and at the wannabes. The Dregs have been cast aside.

Many people have asked me why I have stopped writing. I have not but The Garden City News has stopped printing my letters, I assume because of the very large number of St. Pauls letters. The fate of St. Pauls is important but not as important as it has been made out to be. Folks, get it done, up or down. I support our control and use of all the land we purchased, eventually build as we choose and have what we can afford. Under our present system this will result in years of debate.

Election Day, Nov. 4, will now come quickly and I do believe Garden City will go big for McCain and Palin, but John and Sarah cannot do this job alone. They will need the support of Republicans in the Senate and House not just in Washington but also in Albany. The rot in Washington and in Albany must be flushed out. There is a putrid stench flowing from both cities, The Augean Stables, open the flood gates. Sure, blame the politicians and I do, but we have allowed it to happen.

I have watched both the Fed and the Sec literally do nothing. An assemblage of well connected Wall St. and political hacks securing a fat job, then failing to regulate and enforce. Look at the banking mess, the growing number of home foreclosures, and now, we the people, will really be hurt by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Fiasco. The Fed has pushed us deeper into socialism.

A few heads will roll at both government agencies and we will be required to pay huge golden parachutes to those too smart fools. It's all your money, or it was. Have I laid the word "Fools" upon the wrong party?

We have been made partners to a fraud which will cost us trillions and to what end? Speaking from personal experience I am telling you - failure to regulate, failure to enforce, leaving you and me in a condition of impotence. The wail of the common man, "Oh well, what can you do?" The pols know us well.

It breaks my heart to write these words but the Bush Administration has collapsed and I want George out. The Democrates have been trying to tie McCain to Bush and thus far have failed. Sadly, George has been a one issue president, very big, but other issues besides The War are also important and in those areas we and George have failed.

I am not going to list the major issues you live with every day. One grave problem goes to the very heart and soul of our country. A most corrosive issue, abortion on demand, infanticide, partial birth abortion. Is abortion the answer to an inconvenience?

Ladies, you have been flexing your muscles and weak men have yielded to your newly found machismo. How about being they very best you can be doing that which is most important? A good mother, a protector of every child. Two persons have the right to life, you and your unborn child.

And men, I'm not letting you off the hook. The new phrase is, "I'm in a relationship." A boy can make a baby but it takes a man to help raise a child. So, stick around wise guy, you have responsibilities.

Over a period of years we have worked ourselves into a horrible mess, complex and possibly unsolvable problems, both nationally and internationally. John McCain and Sarah Palin will be a great help, but not the complete answer to the problems.

As always, possible solutions will depend upon us and upon our becoming the kind of people we must be.

Edward J. Heaney