Email: editor@ gcnews.com 

Wake Up, Garden City

To the Editor,

The lead article in this newspaper last week reported that the Joint Conference Committee of the POAs had turned over to the Village Board of Trustees the matter of an opinion poll of residents on St. Paul’s. In the article, Mayor Peter Bee told the Garden City News that the Board may consider hiring a professional pollster to conduct a community-wide poll. The absence of the JCC and a unified presence of the four property owners associations in the St. Paul’s process makes it all the more important that residents come out and monitor their trustees’ actions even more closely.

The problem is a simple one. The people should be voting on one question and one question only - Do we approve of the plan submitted by AvalonBay Communities? Instead, two of the POAs are trying to confuse the issue with questions about demolition or mothballing, without providing anyone with enough information about these options to make a reasoned and well-considered decision. And then there is Trustee Mauk, who recused himself from the Mayor’s Committee because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. An affiliate of his employer, CB Richard Ellis, has invested millions in AvalonBay stock. Why is he AvalonBay’s most ardent supporter and why does he argue that AvalonBay is the only choice except demolition? We already know that isn’t true. It’s not surprising that AvalonBay wants the demolition choice to be considered. In fact, they threatened to walk away if demolition was NOT on the ballot. Is this yet another scare tactic?

So, let’s decide on AvalonBay once and for all and move on.

It remains disturbing, too, that the Village has not corrected problems with its website, and residents cannot access agendas for upcoming Board of Trustees meetings online. This problem has persisted over several months. This certainly doesn’t encourage residents to participate in the process. Or, is that the point?

We urge all residents to pay close attention as our community moves into the final phase of possibly selecting a commercial developer for St. Paul’s. This is our opportunity to say whether we like or dislike what the Mayor’s Committee has come up with. We encourage all residents to attend Board of Trustees meetings before it’s too late. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 2, at 8 p.m. at Village Hall. Please be there.

Peter Negri,

Ed Keating,

Michael Ciaffa

Frank McDonough

Members of the Executive Committee of The

Committee to Save St. Paul’s

CPOA Responds

To the Editor:

I am writing this letter in response to Brian Daughney's Letter to the Editor of the Garden City News on September 19, 2008. My name is Pat DiMattia and I am the President of the Central Property Owners' Association, CPOA. As president of the CPOA, I serve as a member of the Joint Conference Committee, JCC.

The thrust of Brian Daughney's letter gives the impression that the CPOA prevented a residential poll on St. Paul's. NOT TRUE! The CPOA and the WPOA endorsed a poll that would give residents an opportunity to voice their opinion on the Acceptance or Rejection on the AvalonBay Plan. This is the only decision that is critical at this time. AvalonBay was selected by the Mayor's Committee. Therefore, it is imperative that the Board of Trustees hear from the residents on the AvalonBay plan first and foremost. Furthermore, any discussion or decision about demolition or preservation for a future use should not happen until after the resolution of AvalonBay. In contrast, on their own, the EPOA and the Estates POA wanted to hold a two question poll since the JCC was at an impasse - AvalonBay or Demolition. Under this scenario the CPOA felt that residents may be forced to accept AvalonBay to avoid demolition. It was a "no win" situation for those who neither supported the AvalonBay plan nor wanted demolition. Even a three question poll (AvalonBay, Mothballing or Demolition) just "muddies the water" on the AvalonBay decision which is why the CPOA stands by its position of a Yes/No poll only.

So read on, to quote Paul Harvey, "for the rest of the story."

In his letter, Brian Daughney provides his account of the three JCC meetings that took place during the month of August regarding the non-binding referendum on St. Paul's. His characterization of the discussions is misleading, many of his comments are inaccurate, and his accusations about Trustee Lamberti and the CPOA are false.

Essentially, he implies I was not being a "team player" at the JCC meetings. Further, he implies that I was not speaking on behalf of the CPOA but was taking direction from Trustee Lamberti. More troubling, he states outright that Trustee Lamberti and the CPOA are controlled by the Committee to Save St. Paul's. (CSSP) All of these accusations are not true and I was surprised and offended by them.

I will start with Trustee Lamberti. In his first sentence, Brian refers to Trustee Lamberti as Mayoral Candidate Lamberti. Now as president of the CPOA, I am in frequent contact with both Trustees Lamberti and Brudie as well as with Tom Simpson who is our chairperson of the Central Nominating Committee. At no time, has there been any mention to me personally or to our board publically of Tom Lamberti's consideration or desire to run for mayor. Interestingly, the only time it was casually mentioned was by Dennis Donnelly, president of the EPOA and chairman of the JCC at one of the St. Paul's meetings. I think Brian took unsubstantiated liberties with his use of the words mayoral candidate and I question why he would do that.

The CPOA has the utmost respect for the due diligence and hard work that both Trustees Lamberti and Brudie bring to their responsibilities as members of the Board of Trustees. However, they DO NOT dictate to our board. Their responsibility to the CPOA is to be a liaison between our board and the BOT. They report to us on the issues, we ask questions and they provide answers and on many matters they seek our input. It is a two-way street in the exchange of information. We don't always agree but in my 13 year tenure with the CPOA, there has never been a time when any trustee, including Don Brudie and Tom Lamberti have ever dictated the actions or decisions of the CPOA. Again, I question Brian's motive for constantly referring to the CPOA as Trustee Lamberti's POA as if he is making our decisions.

In another section of his letter, Brian states Trustee Lamberti's goal to prevent finality when it comes to St. Paul's. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who goes to the BOT meetings and listens to Trustee Lamberti knows that Tom wants finality BUT he insists that it be done correctly with AvalonBay by resolving all issues, legal or otherwise, before making the final decision. That is Trustee Lamberti's approach on every issue. If he has a question that needs resolution, he will bring it up and he won't move forward until it is resolved.

Finally, Brian discusses Trustee Lamberti's use of the term "rogue" at the last BOT meeting. Just to clarify, Tom was referring to the poll that the East and Estates POAs were planning to conduct apart from the JCC because of the impasse. In that context, he was saying the poll would be invalid, which was the same response from the CPOA and the WPOA. It was not his intention to call anyone or a group a "rogue."

At this point, I need to clarify the CPOA's position on the non-binding poll options. It was clear by the third and final meeting of the JCC that we were still at an impasse, Central and West sought a one question poll - AvalonBay "Yes" or "No" and the East and Estates wanted a two question poll "AvalonBay" or "Demolition." Neither side was willing to give in so Brian's characterization of the CPOA as sabotaging the efforts of the JCC by not conceding isn't accurate. In fact, some may ask why they didn't concede to the position taken by Central and the West.

The past two years with regard to St. Paul's have been focused primarily on the "RFP" process. Initially, accepting proposals, followed by the review and analysis of all of the submissions. The next step was the elimination process which then culminated in the decision to conditionally designate AvalonBay as the developer for St. Paul's. That was followed by the MOU process and then months of working with AvalonBay to finalize their plan. It was a massive task by the Mayor's Committee but the emphasis of their work was on the private/public development of St. Paul's. Shouldn't the residents of Garden City, the owners of the St. Paul's property, have the opportunity to voice their opinion on the selection of AvalonBay? Demolition and preserving for a future use are two entirely different issues. The matter at hand is AvalonBay which is why the CPOA took the position for a Yes/No question only.

I appreciate and understand those who argue we need finality on St. Paul's. Actually, I agree but I believe we need closure on AvalonBay first. If the AvalonBay plan is embraced by the majority of the residents in a non-binding poll then the Board of Trustees can substantiate a decision to proceed with AvalonBay. It is the only decision that must be dealt with now. Comingling a decision to preserve or demolish St. Paul's is just clouding the issue on AvalonBay.

Finally, Brian's statement about the CPOA being controlled by the Committee to Save St. Paul's is nonsense. As CPOA president for the past year, I worked hard to ensure that our board maintained a neutral position on St. Paul's. We had a presentation from AvalonBay and I have met with and spoken to Matt Whelan several times. We also had a presentation by CSSP/Canus and another presentation from a developer based in England. During this time, we kept an open mind pending the final report from the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's.

On a personal note, it is no secret that I was an active member of the Families for St. Paul's. I use the word "was" because there have been no activities for several months. I think everyone is waiting for the final decision on AvalonBay. I believe firmly in preserving St. Paul's for public use and it saddens me that there is a real possibility that it probably won't happen. Some residents are tired of the issue and just want it to go away. They say we exhausted all options. I beg to differ; maybe we missed a few things along the way.

Lastly, Brian's comment about Trustee Lamberti's POA's involvement in the write-in ballot of Eileen Collins who by the way, resides in the Western section, is untrue. Our board had nothing to do with the implementation or coordination of that event.

Pat DiMattia

CPOA President

Addendum: Unrelated to the letter above, there was a comment made by a resident at the September 11th BOT meeting comparing Trustee Lamberti's actions on the Board of Trustees to that of Mussolini. I regret that I did not speak up immediately with my outrage but I think everyone at the meeting was shocked. It was a false and hurtful comment to Tom and his family. It should be a lesson to all of us, we are all capable of saying and doing things that negatively impact others and provide no real gain to ourselves.

Let's Get Rid Of AvalonBay!

To the Editor:

The AvalonBay proposal for restoring St. Paul's has some limitations. So, let's get rid of AvalonBay and do a deal with someone who has a better proposal for saving the building; one that will provide a better return to the Village. I'm all in favor of that. But there is one proviso. Before tossing out AvalonBay, I think we should know exactly what that other, better project is that will be the substitute. And just where is that other developer, by the way; the one who is going to commit precious financial resources to this risky reconstruction, and provide more benefit to the Village in the process?

Unfortunately, I know from years spent personally searching for just such an elusive, "better" approach, that no one is going to produce it within the next few days - or the next few months - or even if we keep looking for several more years. The practical, reasonable and affordable alternatives for St. Paul's already have been thoroughly and systematically examined and found wanting for one reason or another.

So then how should we take the plaint, made in this newspaper last week by Mr. Michael Ciaffa, one of the leaders of the Committee to Save St. Paul's ("CSSP")? Mr. Ciaffa wants us all to know that the CSSP "...has always been sensitive to the need for an affordable solution; a compromise plan, he says. More astoundingly, he maintains that the Committee "...proposed such a solution...in partnership with Canus Corp..." in October 2006. In the haste to enter into a "give-away" deal with AvalonBay, however (for reasons he implies were not entirely above-board), this "affordable" compromise was "shot down." What a bunch of hooey!

If the CSSP can still maintain with a straight face that their joint proposal with Canus is an acceptable solution for St. Paul's, we all need to hold onto our wallets a little tighter. Adoption of the Canus proposal would have imposed a financial risk and burden on the taxpayers that our expert consultants characterized as "unacceptable." Talk about a give-away! The proposal was thoroughly repudiated based on hard factual analysis; nothing more nor less. And one has only to look at the facts from the past several years to see that "compromise" on St. Paul's is one of the things the CSSP has worked most fervently to avoid.

Compromise?

A defining mantra for the CSSP has been its insistence that ample space be set aside in the Main Building for unrestricted use by the residents. In an effort to accommodate this demand (i.e., to compromise), those responsible for evaluating the RFP proposals on St. Paul's spent months seeking and evaluating alternatives that would allow for just such public use. After the company was named "Designated Developer," the AvalonBay team met with the CSSP leaders at the request of the Village, to try to broker a compromise the CSSP would accept. The CSSP continued to insist that the only thing acceptable would be for AvalonBay to dedicate a major part of the main floor - prime development space - solely for public use. So much for compromise.

The problem with any carve-out of Main Building space is that it makes any project less attractive to would-be developers. More importantly it also necessitates undesirable increases in the size of any development. The Village can have public space in the Main Building if it wants. But doing so, as other would-be developers made clear, requires that a significant amount of additional development (much more than in the current AvalonBay proposal) must be done elsewhere on the property. Otherwise, (as financial experts confirmed) the reduced return on investment that results from removing Main Building space for public use, would be insufficient to support the project. And that's not all; in order to fund and support such public space, the Village would have to pay regular rental fees and ongoing operating charges to the developer forever. Thanks, but no thanks.

Despite these problems, AvalonBay was directed by the Village to keep exploring a public space option. No matter how the project was configured, however, the set-aside of public space in the building still produced the same unacceptable result. It doesn't make sense, economically or otherwise; nor is it practical to tie the development of any other public space (such as Cluett Hall) to the project. Shortly before AvalonBay's final proposal was released to the public, members of the Mayor's Committee wisely decided that the public space option is not a practical or affordable development alternative, and was not worthy of serious consideration by the residents. If there is a real need for additional public space (something that is questionable), it would be better, and far less expensive, to accommodate such need outside of St. Paul's.

The CSSP/Canus "Solution"

Now let's return to Mr. Ciaffa's assertion that the CSSP/Canus proposal is the solution to our problems. Their proposal, he assures us, would have created a "public-private partnership," one that "would have preserved and saved St. Paul's for mixed public and private use." What could be better than that? The trouble is where do we find an experienced developer willing to risk its own funds, rather than the Village's, to make such a development work on the terms the CSSP is offering? There aren't any.

In order to attract a developer to their concept, the CSSP did the unthinkable. They removed the development risk from the developer and transferred it, instead, to the residents and taxpayers of Garden City!! The Canus Corp., the CSSP's developer for this plan, would have absolutely none of its own monies invested in the project. CSSP/Canus proposed to tap other funding sources, of course (including IDA grants), but the project was to be underwritten primarily by Garden City's taxpayers. The partnership projected potential dividends for the residents if everything worked out; just as there is always the possibility of a big payoff whenever you roll the dice in Atlantic City. Any failure or material change in the other cash resources, however, would cause the whole development to collapse, and could cause the Village to lose control of the property as a result. What kind of foolish gamble is that? I absolutely disagree with Mr. Ciaffa's assertions that their plan would only cost each household $100/year. The cost would be much more than that in any event; and, given the risk the CSSP wanted to impose on the Village, could get completely out of control. We should all hope that no one with a fiduciary responsibility to the residents (such as the Village Trustees) would ever sign-on to such a scheme.

Before selecting AvalonBay as the designated developer, the Village commissioned a Risk Analysis that compared the AvalonBay and CSSP/Canus proposals side-by side. Space prevents me from going into more detail about the enormous deficiencies of the CSSP/Canus proposal revealed by that analysis. But the results clearly demonstrated that AvalonBay's proposal is far superior in every way to the risky venture offered by the CSSP.

The Risk Assessment was presented privately to some of the leaders of the CSSP. At that meeting, one of the volunteers working on the assessment, a Village resident responsible for overseeing billions of dollars in real estate assets, challenged the CSSP representatives to explain how they could even think of imposing such a risky and poorly conceived plan on the residents. We are all still waiting for the answer.

Following the meeting and the AvalonBay selection, the CSSP and Canus asked to withdraw their proposal, and said they would no longer advocate its adoption. In exchange they asked the Village to cancel the public presentation of the Risk Analysis. Since, at the time, there appeared to be no compelling reason for going forward with the presentation, the cancellation was made. We should all rue the day that deal was struck. It's past time for the Risk Analysis to be released to the press and public.

In their activities over the ensuing months, and now with Mr. Ciaffa's letter, the CSSP has violated the agreement that caused the Risk Analysis to be withheld from the press and public. The latest message from the CSSP seems to be, "Let's get rid of AvalonBay." Once that is done, the CSSP can step in with their public-private partnership to turn St. Paul's into a "community centerpiece." Those who care about this Village and their personal financial future should work to assure that proposal is never tested on the building or the Village.

Mr. Ciaffa objected to what he calls my "diatribe" against the CSSP. I object that the CSSP continues to be less than forthcoming with the public and even with its most fervent supporters. It's past time to stop tantalizing the residents with illusions of a better solution for St. Paul's. The clock on St. Paul's reads one minute to Midnight. It's time for all of us to recognize that we either find a way to do a deal with AvalonBay, or we tear the building down.

John Mauk

Unanswered Questions

To the Editor:

I just got back from the Estates Property Owners Association meeting where Avalon Bay presented their proposal on St. Pauls.

As with most meetings regarding St. Paul’s these days, it was quite lively. I heard a lot of good questions of great concern and a lot more vague answers and “we don’t knows” and it will be up to the Village to solve that problem. My question to Avalon Bay is whether they really feel they are ready for a vote with so many unanswered questions regarding their proposal?

Robert Reid

St. Paul's: Another Option?

To the Editor:

With all the letters from both sides firmly planted in concrete, I, as a direct neighbor, would like to offer another possibility for the long term vision of St. Paul's.

My suggestion would be to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a world-class sports/social center that would benefit generations to come. The new St. Paul's Sports & Social Center would be something like an upscale architecturally pleasing Chelsea Piers facility. We may also want to consider building a new chapel using many of the historic components from the old St. Paul's chapel.

These are my top ten reasons why we should consider this option:

#1 Garden City Is All About Our Children

As we all know, the availability of field /gym space is severely limited. The new St. Paul's Sports & Social Center could easily accommodate the overflow so our parents/children don't have to travel to outside facilities, clinics, etc.

# 2 Lounge

The new St. Paul's Sports & Social Center could have a lounge. This lounge could have glass walls so that parents and grandparents can enjoy a cappuccino while watching their children compete. The lounge could be similar to a large Starbucks and be decorated with pictures and testimonials of the old St. Paul's facility, have plasma TV's, etc.

# 3 Summer Sports

Envision the use of the facility in the summer for sports that cannot be played outdoors (fencing, wrestling, yoga, volleyball, and basketball might be a few examples). This will enable both adults and children to remain active every day and night if they want to be.

# 4 Summer Activities

Since the St. Paul's Sports & Social Center would be a flexible space, we might be able to use it for social activities such as anniversary, graduation and birthday parties. Or what about concerts, large community events, corporate meetings, exhibitions, holiday parties, etc.

# 5 Winter Sports

Once school begins, gym space becomes very difficult to obtain. The St. Paul's Sports & Social Center could cover the overflow of all GCAA, CYO and travel programs as well as practice timeslots.

When all our adults and children are not using the facility, we might choose to outsource timeslots to local colleges, high schools and other athletic organizations. We may choose to do our Leagues in Garden City and bypass outside facilities. There could be "Friday Night Lights" and we'd know that every Friday night we could come to this complex and see our children competing in one sport or another.

# 6 Winter Activities

In addition to sports, why not also use the facility for concerts and art exhibits? Why not showcase our own talent in the arts so that all of Garden City can celebrate in our children's talents? This facility could be used for our growing dance and band programs and to showcase their talents as well. Who knows, maybe we will find an American Idol or So You Think You Can Dance star among our winners?

# 7 Senior Citizens

All Garden City residents over 60 could participate in the senior center at no cost. It could be adjacent to the lounge and be designed by them and for them as thanks for all the years they have contributed to Garden City. With all the latest research indicating that we will all live longer, this might become a very large and active center. The center could include a card room, reading room for book clubs, etc.

# 8 Costs

This option could potentially be the best financial model since it could generate revenue from the different uses of the flex space:

*Outsourcing of concerts, art exhibits, revenue from the use of sports (similar to the Island Garden model)

*Outsourcing field space to other athletic organizations, colleges, and high schools

*Selling individual & corporate sponsorships that could proudly be displayed in the St. Paul's lounge

*Finding a major sponsor that would underwrite the cost of the center on an annual basis

# 9 Home Is Where the Heart Is

All present research suggests that, due to increasing costs of fuel and a tough economic climate, people are staying home. What better way to spend a day than to visit the St. Paul's Sports & Social Center and see your friends, neighbors and children participate in various events?

# 10 Gym / Game Room

At the rear of the space - and not on the field of play - could be two rooms with glass walls. The game room could consist of games like ping pong, pool, chess, backgammon, computers, PlayStation and maybe even a golf simulator. The other room would be a gym, a state-of-the-art facility, which all children and adults can enjoy.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge both sides of the debate as working hard for our best interests. My suggestion doesn't have all the answers but I believe it would be the best model to follow for the future of the community: a world-class sport and social center in one of the greatest communities in the United States. Many of us would gladly write a check and be a sponsor for this type of facility.

Daniel T. Donnelly,

LEED EB AP

Donnelly Mechanical Corp.

Let Common Good Prevail

To the Editor:

From day one the goal for St Paul's has been to preserve its historic main building at minimal or no cost to the village (which for the record the Eastern Property Owners Association has repeatedly endorsed). Such a solution exists via Avalon Bay, if its bid isn't torpedoed by those who apparently care nothing about the village except for what their own little cabal wishes to impose on all of the rest of us. It sounds as if their stonewalling techniques are getting perilously close to prevailing as everyone is losing interest and so will now do just about anything to see the issue put to bed, regardless of the outcome... and by the way one can only imagine the haggling that will ensue regarding what should be built there if this historic building is leveled!

If these people don't want a walking or running path to be built on public property because it is inconvenient to them, just think of their reaction when plans are proposed for some other worthwhile use for this valuable land for all of our residents benefit at a future date.

Why pay nearly $6M for the privilege of tearing down a historic building and one of the icons of this village (or $15M plus $200,000 per year for "mothballing") when it can be preserved at no cost (or even a profit) to residents if the special interests are told that this is not the way democracy works...the unmitigated gall of threatening to declare a proposed non binding referendum, designed and planned to give our trustees and state senator the residents unbiased input, a "rogue election".

Give me a break, do we want to aid and abet that sort of thinking by capitulating; they are betting that we will! I know that I don't and none of us should feel very good about ourselves if we unwittingly play right into their hands out of frustration now after all the work that has been done through the years to achieve the goal stated above that with some fine tuning is presently very much within our grasp.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives from where I sit; lets let common sense, and the common good prevail (for once). Make certain your trustees and Sen. Hannon know where you stand on this issue and that you will hold them accountable if a minority view is allowed to prevail.

Harrison D. Oellrich

P.S. Some of you may recognize my name as vice president of the Eastern Property Owners Association (EPOA), the POA charged with representing the interests of about 40% of village residents. In the interests of transparency and full disclosure however, I wish to point out that this letter is being written to a much greater extent from the perspective of my 41 years as a resident and so far more from my heart and from the love of this beautiful village than in my role as an officer of any civic organization!

The St. Paul's Misery

To the Editor:

Indeed, the St. Paul's fiasco has become an ugly, despicable affair, not only laughable, but also nauseating. We, the residents, should also feel guilty and responsible, in part, for allowing such procrastination, indecision, and terribly 'messy' situation that we find ourselves and the Village in. Undoubtedly, our 'laissez faire' attitude and auto-complacency for almost 15 years, has fueled and substantially added to this horrendous problem. Certainly, Emile Zola would had pointed his accusatory index toward us for such 'don't give a damn, don't bother me, don't care attitude.

I recently sent an e-mail to Mr. Peter Bee, our Mayor, stating my very strong opposition to the Avalon Bay proposal. I, and many other residents, visited in-situ their much acclaimed 'show' at the St. Paul facility after seeing their equally highly publicized full page advertisement-invitation published in the Garden City News. None of the dozen or more Avalon Representatives present there, could firmly, unequivocally, assure me that their project, as presented to the public, would not presently or in the future, under any circumstances, add one more penny to our already onerous property taxes. I further questioned them to specify, in detail, the benefits to the Village and its residents. I received a lecture lacking any tangible proof, only supposed and unpredictable returns. Everything was a repetition of what we already knew and read in their report to our BOT. I am still convinced, more than ever, that the Village and its residents will suffer an irreparable loss. The 99 year lease under the terms proposed is an aberration. The PILOT reimbursement to the Village is more than ridiculous, it is offensive.

I must sadly say that I have lost my confidence, my faith in the BOT, POA's the mayor, the financial and legal advisors et al. At the beginning of this by now 'macabre' episode resembling more a Halloween horror story, I was a strong supporter for preservation of this building. Now, after digesting lots of facts and numbers and hearing and reading my fellow residents comments, I am totally opposed and very strongly support the large number (I believe to be a majority) of residents recommending demolition. Please, I beg you, to let us 'directly' and individually exercise our right to vote not only whether I (we) agree/approve or reject the Avalon Bay project but also, whether demolition should take place. Future generations will thank us for preserving, securing for them such beautiful open space. Certainly, not the BOT, POAs, the Mayor nor the actual advisors can replace it once it is gone, 'given' to Avalon Bay. The BOT is and should be accountable to the residents of the Village. Politics, self interest should not be allowed. To forcefully impose their wish on us, the residents, is just despicable. Enough with the gross and plentifully demonstrated ineptitude, passing 'the buck', refusal to accept responsibility, procrastination, lack of proper communication and transparency regarding this very old and by now almost ancient project. Let's unite once and for all and demand a prompt, feasible and acceptable solution. Enough is enough. This procrastination is not only absurd, but dire say, almost obscene.

Antonio Moreno

What Is The Cost?

To the Editor:

In the St. Paul’s discussion, one thing I haven’t seen is the cost to residents for the choices: mothball, Avalon Bay or demolish. I may have missed it in the articles or letters, because I tend to lose interest after the first 1,000 words of “he said, she said”. Maybe one of those committees or underpaid consultants could let me know.

You could start with taxes the Village would get under the three scenarios. There was an attachment to one of the letters that showed the taxes we would receive from Avalon Bay under the 20 year pilot program - about $4 million in total over the 20 years. The same schedule showed full taxes would be about $31 million over the same period. So I would assume with mothball we get no taxes, Avalon Bay we get $4 million and if demolished and somebody builds a similar property we get $31 million. I know it is much more complicated than that, but it seems a place to start. If you stopped there and admittedly oversimplify, saving the façade costs us $27 million in lost taxes (I hope I’m mistaken).

I apologize if this has already been covered before, but nobody I know seems to be aware of the costs to the Village for the different options. And since I see everything else rehashed, why not this?

Doug Wilder

We Pay The Tab

To the Editor:

In response to Trustee Lamberti’s demand for an apology from the East’s POA member Mrs. Episcopia, it brought to mind a line from the movie “Hunt for Red October” when the Russian Exec says to the Captain, who’s determined to kill Capt. Ramius after finding out he’s going to defect, “You arrogant b*****d, you’ve killed us”. Perhaps her statement was unintended to disparage his nationality, but then again, having also been in the way of Mr. Lamberti’s tracer insults there’s no doubt in my mind, his arrogance of “Either my way or the Highway” seems to be his mantra. I’ve read with great interest the numerous responses regarding the inability of the Trustees to allow all the residents of our community to make their decision, the finality of whether to “Avalon Bay or the Highway”. It seems to me the statement: “Of the people, by the people and for the people” does not apply here. Since less than 10% of the residents ever come out to vote as to who shall be our Mayor and its representatives on the Board of Trustees, the result is now beginning to show its ugly head and we have only ourselves to blame. It is beyond being imperative that the will of the people, “we the residents,” have the final say, not one nor a Board of a few. We pay the tab, so at least let us see the bill before we do so.

Thomas M. Covino

EPOA resident

P. S. Also being of Italian descent, I did not take umbrage with Mrs. Episcopia’s comment!

Civility And Service

To The Editor:

A regular reader of our local newspaper publications, as most concerned Village Citizens are, I question the source of distrust and emotional reactions that blur the focus needed to address issues crucial to life in our community.

Our unusual system of governance may function successfully only in a community of capable, intelligent and visionary leaders, who function without vitriol and politics. I must commend our distinguished Mayor Peter Bee as one of those leaders.

Despite all the noise that surrounds him that would be debilitating, discouraging and would prompt dysfunction to most, Mr. Bee manages to conduct himself in a professional manner with equity and objectivity. With all the major issues he needs to confront, he manages to communicate each week to all of us with regard to considerations, though minor by comparison, that help to maintain the atmosphere we enjoy here.

I am grateful that Peter Bee has engaged in affiliations, business transactions, and professional interactions that elevate his perspective and his ability to lead us with awareness and the wisdom of his experiences. To seek capable leaders who have virtually no associations with agencies or individuals that may be summoned by our Village for consultation or action, is to eliminate the vast majority of Garden City citizens who possess the extensive knowledge needed to participate meaningfully in our government in any capacity.

The emergence of the transparency issue, and the disgraceful accusations expressed relative in the St. Paul’s situation evidence a character in some of our residence that is appalling. Some of us give more respect to a fabricated need of principal and a building than they give to their neighbors.

Perhaps, these are unintended consequences of our culture that has evolved into emphasis on idealism, emphasis on the individual, faith in only one’s self, and inherent distrust. Some of us just may not imagine that there are capable talented people who are inclined to share their personal gifts to serve, the only benefit to be gained being the satisfaction of making a difference.

Thanks to our local newspapers for their clarity in communicating the degree of concern shared by so many in the discourses that regard our Village.

Jacqueline Burdi-Eltringham,

Resident

Thanks For Volunteering

To the Editor:

As our kids move slowly away from Garden City organized sports and more towards school sports we would like to take the time to thank all the coaches, teachers and mentors that have made a lasting impression on my kids.

Thanks Joe Gutterding for your passion for football, your love for the kids and the reason why our son still loves football. Thanks Kevin Walsh for your passion for baseball and your teaching on all aspects of the game. It's helped our son become a better baseball player. Thanks Tony Cordio for your love of baseball, making those baseball videos and telling each boy what they meant to the team. Thanks to Tim Worstell, Pete Coleman and Bob Jahelka. Even though our kids moved to baseball your passion for Lax, your teaching skills (not just Lax) and your commitment will never be forgotten. Thanks to Vinny Fusco for his passion and commitment to soccer and for taking the time to have an interest in every kid and parent on the team. Thanks to John Walsh for winning the 4th grade CYO championship while playing all the kids fairly and being a big teddy bear with all the boys. Thanks to Fred Prevette for always thinking of the kids and going out of his way to drive the boys to and from games. Thanks to Harry Packman who may be the most generous person and most knowledgeable baseball manager in town. Thanks to John Garcia for sending home those baseball trivia questions and allowing our son to laugh at himself while giving up a homer run during a championship game. Thanks to John Skramko for making it a lot of fun for 3rd grade boys playing baseball. Thanks to Rich Clarkson for always being sensitive to every kid's needs and teaching them the game of basketball at St Anne's. Thanks to coaches Gullo and Kimball for helping our 7th grader fit in with 9th and 10th graders. This was one of his most memorable baseball experiences. Thanks to Steve Duff for always going out of his way to make all the major league Dodgers feel that they were a big part of the team. Thanks to Kathy Gallagher for guiding our Daughter through her first basketball season and making it fun so she would continue to play. Thanks to Dan Donnelly for all his great work organizing the yearly Father and Son Football day. Dan brings a community together better then anyone I know.

Every one of the above coaches, teachers, mentors have left a lasting impression on our family and for that we're very grateful. I'm sure there are many, many other families with similar stories about the above people and other's in our great community. It's never too late to volunteer and make a difference in a kid's life and it's never too late to thank those that have helped us along the way.

John Posada