Letters To The Editor

Changing

The Subject

To the Editor:

Despite their many protestations over the years, the anti-AvalonBay faction has been unable to deliver their own workable and affordable plan for St. Paul's. I am more than a little disconcerted, however, by their frequent attempts to use personal attacks to keep others from focusing on that fact.

Last week some letter writers tried to convince the public that the AvalonBay proposal is being advanced by some people - especially me - who are out for personal gain. I can understand why they would prefer to refocus the discussion - once again - to an examination of my character. If they can change the subject, some residents may forget that neither the Committee to Save St. Paul's ("CSSP") nor any of those who share their dislike of the AvalonBay proposal have the details for any other real solution for saving and reusing the building. If the allegations are repeated frequently enough, they must also think that, eventually, I'll be driven from the discussion, and they won't have to hear my vocal objections to so much of the misinformation they disseminate. That's not going to happen.

I understand the passion many of us feel about the St. Paul's issue. But these new personal attacks cross the line. Some of the allegations against me are downright lies; Garden City's own "Swift Boat" venture into smear politics. For the record, therefore, let me be clear once again about my employment and relationship to AvalonBay:

No Conflict

I work for a Fortune 500 Company with over 33,000 employees internationally. My employer, which is headquartered in Los Angeles, represents the real estate needs of 88 of the Fortune 100 corporations. It would be as surprising to learn that it has not done business with AvalonBay, as it would be to find out that United Airlines has no dealings with Boeing. The investment in AvalonBay, however, represents a very small fraction (less than 1%) of my company's total investments. Furthermore, I have no involvement or decision in making those investments; I have no involvement (through my employment or in any other way except through the Village) in any dealings with AvalonBay; and I derive no personal benefit from anything that happens with respect to such dealings or investments other than the general benefit derived by any employee when its employer makes successful investments.

Following a review of the facts, Village counsel concluded that nothing about my background or employment creates a conflict of interest - legally or otherwise - or prohibits me from participating in any of the discussions or decisions regarding AvalonBay and its proposal to redevelop St. Paul's. I stepped down from the chairmanship of the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's last March precisely because I didn't want to give anyone the ammunition to claim that the conclusions and recommendations issued by the Committee were influenced by any alleged personal bias or conflict on my part. The Committee has now concluded - under the chairmanship of Tom Lamberti, and independent of my involvement - that the Village has only two options: AvalonBay or demolition. I expect to participate fully in the decision-making process going forward until this important issue is resolved. The fact that one small faction seems to spare no effort in trying to keep me from doing so convinces me that I must be saying something right.

Finally, the allegations made by two of the letter writers, that "The appraisal [of the St. Paul's property] was done by a firm connected with Mr. Mauk's firm and AVB," are totally false and reckless and may very well be libelous. The firm that appraised the St. Paul's development site was part of the consultant team, and was selected for that role on its merits, and without any influence by anyone representing the Village. The only "connection" between my firm and the appraisal firm is to observe that both are engaged in providing similar commercial real estate services - in direct competition with each other. At the time the final property appraisal was ordered, which the Anti-AvalonBay faction finds so offensive, I was no longer even involved with the Mayor's Committee. Clearly there is no connection, and no conflict.

Other Alternatives

So let's return our focus to the central issue: What's the solution for saving and restoring St Paul's at minimal to no taxpayer expense? For years, many of us have been asking the CSSP and others who share their bias against AvalonBay, to come forward with those other "feasible alternatives" they claim to know about for doing just that. Unfortunately, these requests seem to fall on deaf ears. Or can it be, rather, that such other alternatives have already been fully considered and found wanting for one reason or another? The CSSP's allegation that other feasible alternatives "were shot down without good cause," is simply not supported by the facts.

The AvalonBay proposal, despite some limitations, provides the only feasible alternative anyone has come up with - after years of searching - for restoring this historic Garden City landmark at minimal to no taxpayer expense. As previously noted, the Mayor's Committee concluded that the only other clear option is demolition. I hope that will never happen, but I fear we are heading in that direction simply because so many people don't want to accept the realistic facts that have been so apparent to everyone commissioned by the Village who has studied the problem.

It's still possible to modify the AvalonBay plan to address some of the issues and concerns residents have raised. And those of us who truly want to save the building, need to focus on doing that now before it's too late.

John Mauk

Does AVB Control The BOT?

To the Editor:

Who is in charge here? On October 2nd we witnessed Matt Whalen's control over many members of our Board of Trustees (BOT). Before voting on the wording of the ballot (1. AVB Yes, 2. Demolition, 3. St. Paul's status quo instead of AvalonBay Yes or No), the BOT appeared to look to AVB's Matt Whalen for approval. Again we ask, who is in charge here? Many others witnessed this exchange and have been talking about it ever since. Residents are also talking about Mr. Mauk's irresponsible and frightening comment to a resident when he shouted, "Yeah I work for AvalonBay, you got a problem with that?" We thought at that moment there would be a riot. Sadder still was when Matt Whalen had to pull his business card out of his wallet to show everyone that the AVB motto is "enhancing the lives of our residents" - well we hate to clue you in Mr. Whalen but the residents you speak of are the tenants of AVB - NOT THE RESIDENTS OF GARDEN CITY. We were impressed with the Garden City residents who remained composed and didn't throw him and the BOT out of the boardroom!

This isn't about saving St. Paul's this is about saving Garden City! In the next few years there will be development at the Bookspan property, Eleventh St. & Washington Ave. (P Zone), 100 Ring Road, the lot east of Raymond Ct and the old Newsday property on Stewart Ave. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - let's take the "city" out of Garden City. We have been attending BOT meetings for the last six months and one thing is very clear - THE RESIDENTS OF GARDEN CITY DON'T WANT AVALONBAY! A record number of people got up to say the only vote right now should be "AvalonBay - Yes or No" Is the BOT afraid of the answer? Residents realize AvalonBay will cost us far more than we could ever imagine! Hundreds of people left the meeting thinking it was over and the BOT listened, well guess what? It fell on deaf ears. Why is Mr. Mauk behaving like an AvalonBay representative? Remember, it is he who is slated to be our next mayor. (Unless someone challenges his candidacy) It's time we get this runaway train back on track and send AvalonBay packing!

Evelyn and Steve Vouyiouklakis

Jackie and Bob Sprotte

Editor's Note: Mr. Mauk responded to the comments in this letter as follows:

The atmosphere in the Board Room last Thursday came close to mob hysteria at times. The majority of the audience had been pulled in by e-mails and other messages circulated throughout the week, encouraging all of those opposed to AvalonBay to come make their feelings known at the meeting. And most of them did exactly that.

They clapped and cheered whenever a speaker attacked the Board members or AvalonBay, or presented a position contrary to their own.

Many of the audience members weren't even tolerant of anyone, whether Board member or fellow resident who had anything to say that differed from their own strongly held opinions.

Talk about "irresponsible and frightening!" The few residents who rose to say anything favorable about the AvalonBay proposal, began their remarks by indicating how intimidating the atmosphere was, as if pleading with the crowd not to shout them down.

I know some of us on the Board felt the same way. The Mayor, who threatened several times to clear the room, deserves a lot of credit for not letting the unruly crowd take over the meeting.

In the middle of all this commotion, after one speaker referred to me by name, another man in the audience jumped part way out of his chair, pointed at me and yelled out, "He works for AvalonBay." In the absurdity of the moment, I responded sarcastically, "Yeah, right, I work for AvalonBay." I might better have said "How ridiculous!" "Do you have anything at all to support such a stupid allegation?" I suppose it is way too much to expect that he or some other members of that audience would understand irony, or recognize sarcasm when they heard it.

For the record, I do not now nor have I ever worked for AvalonBay.

What has the St. Paul's issue done to all of us to make people such as these letter writers and some in the audience last Thursday, so convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong? It is indeed "sad" to use their term, when they have to impute ulterior motives to anyone who has a position contrary to their own.

It certainly lacks basic courtesy, civility and forbearance that has always (until now) been a part of our civil discourse in Garden City. For everybody's sake, I hope we can return to that.

John Mauk

Architectural Jewel

To The Editor:

The then Mayor of Garden City on March 4, 1993 chaired a public hearing on St. Paul's in order to "inform the public about the proposed acquisition." The Mayor represented that the Board of Trustees had voted to acquire the 48.6 acre parcel to "preserve [it]... for our future generations." The stated benefits of the acquisition included "village control," "prevention of undesirable use and development," "preservation of significant green space and playing fields," "acquisition of needed facilities for current and future social, cultural and recreational activities for residents of all ages," "immediate utilization of a large fieldhouse and gymnasium/auditorium," and "preservation of [an] architectural jewel which defines our special historical character."

St. Paul's was a jewel then and is a jewel now. It has remained so with an expenditure of about $100,000 per year. Do not let 15 years of frustration cause destruction of a major part of GC's DNA. A use will arise. Meanwhile, enjoy the view.

James M. Kenny

How Much Longer?

To the Editor:

The last BOT meeting was really quite a show, worthy of a TV production, with its booing, clapping, shaming and even threatening the Trustees with jail!!! What kind of a democracy do these people believe in when they refuse to listen to the opposite views and actually threaten the Trustees who try to listen to everyone's opinion and not only the vociferous group that invaded the room with intent to take over the decision making process. What is even more amazing is that most of them left before the vote was taken on the poll survey questions.

Let us end this bickering and finalize this process. Yes, we would like to save St. Paul's, and so far the only way to accomplish this without having to actually pay from our pockets is to allow Avalon Bay to take on the task as negotiated by the Mayor's Committee.

It is amazing how many people keep bringing up the same "alternatives" that have been considered and rehashed for 15 years and rejected because they were not practical and financially feasible.

How many times did the Mayor's Committee accord extensions to the Canus developers in order to give them a chance to present a viable proposal? At least 4 times!!

How much longer should we put up with the vague ideas of other "alternatives"?

Mathilde Bellmer

Need a Better System

To The Editor:

Why has The St. Paul's / Avalon Bay issue become such a lighting rod issue within the community? Many residents may think it has to do with a fundamental disagreement between residents, some of who may favor Avalon Bay, and others who oppose Avalon Bay with their track record, potential for affordable housing(which has the potential to eventually include section 8), the property giveaway or many other valid reasons to oppose Avalon Bay. In my opinion this would be a TOTALLY IMPROPER CONCLUSION.

From what I have observed, other then a handful of our thousands of residents, evidence to date has demonstrated that the vast majority of residents oppose the Avalon Bay deal. (note: many residents do want to save St Paul's but still oppose Avalon Bay). So why or how can AVALON BAY potentially pass, why does the discussion continue and why are some residents up in arms? The real issue stems from the FACT that a few members on the Board of Trustees have chosen to ignore the overwhelming voice of the people and do what they see fit. At issue is NOT a debate between the residents for or against Avalon Bay, rather the real underlying issue is about a select group of Trustees not only having the power but from my understanding via our current village structure/community agreement, our Trustees are not being required to vote the will of the people of their POA's_ the very people they represent.

Let me say that again in plain language - THEY CAN DO AS THEY SEE FIT NO MATTER WHAT OUR RESIDENTS WANT. Is this really the government structure we want? Where is the outrage with the underlying structure that can allow this? We are a government BY THE PEOPLE , FOR THE PEOPLE, yet our current village law contradicts this. We need to change this ASAP and return large scale community decisions back to the community. I do not think any resident should stand for allowing four Trustees / Mayor to make major community decisions that go against the desires of the vast majority of the community, especially a decision that has such long term and profound effects on our community.

We need an immediate mechanism /amendment to our village community agreement to prevent this happening. At the same time, I recognize we can not have the residents constantly voting and making every basic decision and bring our government and governing bodies to a grinding halt.

As such, I propose the following immediate modification to our community agreement

1) When issues generate enough significant community interest and any community group or resident(s) can garner 1000 signatures, that said issue must then be voted on by residents in each POA.

2) In such instances that require a resident vote, the trustees be bound to vote according the vote/voice of their respective POA.

3) That any such vote be a simple YES or NO to accept or reject a given proposal unless:

i) ALL the POA boards unanimously approve a modified set of voting choices/selections.

I fully realize this may need to be tweaked to pass or comply with local and state guidelines and additions or modifications may need to be made but something needs to be done to institute a better system of checks and balances.

The political machine often moves slowly but government can change quickly when it needs to and when it should. But to do so the people must rise up and not only demand the change, but make it happen and make it happen NOW. This initiative would need a point person that knows the political landscape, along with local and state laws, to spearhead making this modification to our community agreement and it needs to be done NOW or we will forevermore be saddled with a decision made for us not by us.

Additionally, after my draft of this letter, I was informed that certain state laws that may serve as guidelines for the current election process of our trustees and may ultimately make this change difficult to accomplish and furthermore that under current law on our village level we may not simply be able to make a change that requires / legally binds the Trustees to vote according to the POA's. However if this is in fact the case (I need to still ascertain this but can not do so before the paper deadline) we can still continue to explore and find an acceptable method(s) to incorporate a reliable system of checks and balances that better serves and protects the overwhelming desires and concerns of the people especially on critical long term community issues. Suggestion have been made to immediately ask the POA's to pass a resolution asking their trustees abide by the poll results and have the trustees sign an agreement that they would do so. I'm sure there are many other potential solutions and my main point is we need to immediately develop a better system of checks and balances. Furthermore, I fully understand and respect the potential contrary position that_

"Did we not vote these trustee's into office? We as a community vote the people into office that we think will vote the way we want them. In this case we voted for trustee's and have to let the trustee's make the decisions."

While that may be true at some levels, we still need to implement a better system of checks and balances (unfortunately we do not have the full compliment of House/Senate/Pres system of checks and balances) and thus we potentially leave ourselves open to many things including corruption, self promotion, collusion, greed/ego and a host of other potential ills now and in the future. While we have the opportunity to vote individuals in/out of office when the time comes we also need a better mechanism in place that prevents any board from making catastrophic decisions (with profound long term effects) against the residents overwhelming voice, especially when it can go unchecked because we do not currently have a sufficient system of checks and balance in place.

The Avalon Bay issue will take care of itself (pro or con) and a true democratic debate and subsequent democratic solution/VOTE can ensue and take place but only after we rid ourselves of legislation that gives ultimate power and decision making to a few select volunteers who somehow think they know what's best for all of us. We need an improved system of checks and balances that assures rogue boards, trustees with personal agenda's or conflicts of interest cannot and will not our serve their own agendas above the communities once they are in a position of authority. If in fact the trustees that want Avalon Bay still believe a silent majority exists that wants the Avalon Bay proposal they would welcome these changes, assuming they really believe in true democracy. Help change our existing flawed law, demand that our Trustees be accountable to the people they represent and be REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Develop a better system of checks and balances today.

Scott Kiley

If you are interested in being the point person email me @ kileys@plazaequities.com

If you are interested in supporting this movement go to http://www.99polls.com/poll_31045 vote yes and enter your name, address and contact information

PS: In case you missed the recent Board of Trustees meeting

a) 2 residents spoke in favor of Avalon Bay, one of whom works for Avalon Bay (and 4 Trustees), hundreds showed up spoke against Avalon Bay. At least 50 got up and spoke eloquently and passionately against Avalon Bay.

b) Betsy Andromidas presented a well organized documented "book of evidence" demonstrating the tactics utilized by of Avalon Bay, their past history and the potential detrimental effects. The Board really should make this a matter of public record and allow all residents to see this.

c) Several trustees tried to stifle debate and prevent some residents from speaking on an agenda item.

d) Most all residents felt any vote on Avalon Bay should simply be YES or NO. What many do not realize is under current law even if we get to Vote that agenda as is, the trustees are not bound to listen or follow that vote.

e) The following conversation took place at the meeting between a resident and a board member:

"Is Mr. Mauk going to abstain? Doesn't he work for AvalonBay?"

John Mauk stood up, reeled around and shouted,

"Yeah, I work for AvalonBay, you gotta problem with that?"

Another resident stated to others afterward. "This irresponsible comment is from our Trustee! His remark was unconscionable and he should resign from his position immediately." [Editor's Note: Please see Mr. Mauk's response to letter "Does AVB Control The BOT" for comment about this.]

f) Some residents still want other options for St Paul's considered., Apparently residents still want to at least discuss options that increase the quality of life. Residents are even advertising ideas and concepts in GC News (see Dan Donnelly's ad last week). The board has categorically denied this without thorough investigation or consideration because quote "it will cost the tax payer money". Yet the Avalon Bay proposal, when you stop listening to the deceptive corporate tax accounting spin form Avalon Bay can cost the tax payers equally as much if not more over time.

PSS. As much as I want a resolution to St. Paul's I am not ready for the BOARD to make it for me, I think we the residents must make such an important decision collectively and in order to do so we need to facilitate a change in our system of checks and balances to insure our voice is heard.

Other Alternatives

To the Editor:

About a year ago I had the fortunate opportunity to be at a Board of Trustees meeting in which Mr. Hildreth of Garden City told a wonderful story about a woman that ran a Laundromat in Montauk Point. She drove a campaign of fundraising to save the Montauk Playhouse almost single-handedly. Mr. Hildreth asked the Board if they would look into exactly what she did to save their Historic Landmark. They said they would. I don't believe I have heard anyone mention it since. There are other alternatives, but if the powers that be dismiss them because they don't fit into their plans, we will never know what they are. Follow this link to one alternative http://www.montaukplayhouse.org/

Robert Reid

A Message To GC Merchants

To the Editor:

"Msgr. John's Knights," as we are known in the Garden City area, need your help in enabling us to continue a wide range of charitable efforts and community services.

Our highly popular year-end stage fundraiser for high school scholarship grants is titled Paddy Noonan's A Musical Taste of Ireland. It will feature Paddy, hailed for years as a genius on the accordion, world-known popularize of Irish dance music, original founder of Rego Irish Records and director of highly popular Irish stage shows. He is particularly admired in Garden City where he now resides. The show will be held in Saint Anne's McCloskey Auditorium, Dartmouth St. & New Hyde Park Road at 1:30 PM on Sunday, November 30.

Paddy's supporting cast includes the Tommy Mulvihill Band, Scotland's funniest comedian, Eddie Devine, the lovely voices of Mary O'Dowd and Erin Quill, Irish Tenor Brian Hunter and the spectacular Irish Championship Step Dancers, Last year's Irish-oriented fund-raiser attracted a crowd of over 700 fans---many traveling far distances to see their popular Irish star Andy Cooney and his talented entertainers. It was an extra-special treat for some locally who recalled seeing him in his debut on the same McCloskey stage with the famed Paddy Noonan band!

Every great show deserves an upscale type theater program--in the same convenient size as those distributed at Broadway shows. Here_s where your advertising can help support our charities and services and where we can help you make more friends and customers in our area. But, as you might suspect, the black & white ad rates are considerably lower than Broadway_s and the space choice much simpler: $150 per page, $80 per half page and $50 per quarter page.

Interested? Please call us at 516-352-2457 to arrange a visit from a member of our program sales staff or to order tickets at $25 each.

We thank you in advance for any support you may be able to give us in making Paddy Noonan_s A Musical Taste of Ireland a resounding stage and charity success!

"Msgr. John's Knights" represent Msgr. John C. Seidenschwang Kof C Council #11836,

35 Dartmouth St., Garden City, NY 11530.

Jay Lynch, Chairman

Bob Guida, PGK,

Associate Chairman

Thanks For Fundraiser

To The Editor:

My family would like to extend their whole-hearted thanks to the Garden City Retired Educators Association for the fundraiser they held with the proceeds going to the Long Island High School for the Arts for a scholarship in the name of our daughter Melinda who graduated from there as a dance major in 2000. We truly don't know the names of everyone who worked so hard to make this event become a reality but did witness the hard work of Barbara Smith and Eugene Decker, the contribution of Tom Wagner and his wonderful fellow musicians, and the many raffle prizes donated by Culinary Heights, Rialto Restaurant, Benny's Ristorante, La Marmite, Pyramid Jewelers, Carle Place Wine & Liquors, San Giorgio Florist, Garden City Wines, Spirits, Massaro Pizza & Wings, 5 Corners Car Wash, Seventh Street Stationers, McDonald's, Hengstenberg's, Figaro's, Neptune Camera, Chen's Cleaners, Fantasy Nail Spa, Pear Tree, Anastasia Manicure, Gulf Wing Motors, Westbury Liquors, Angelo's Pizza, Wheatley Hills Liquor Store, and the lovely Westbury Manor where the luncheon was held.. In addition, we'd like to thank the vendors who shared their beautiful goods: Barbara Manley's handbags, Pat Schweitzer's hand-painted canvases, Catalina Mueller's semi-precious stone jewelry, and Melissa Jaeger for helping to orchestrate their efforts and for displaying her own personally designed stationery. Of course, we also thank everyone who attended and helped make the afternoon a success.

As ever we'd also like to thank Ava Favara, the principal of LIHSA, for bringing the arts to the students of Long Island and for championing the creative impulses of so many talented youngsters for the past forty years. Finally, I'd like to add a few words from the young woman who received the first scholarship in Melinda's name, awarded in June 2008. Leah DeMeo Siddigee wrote, "Since I was young, dance has been a part of my life and who I am. Being able to attend the Long Island High School of the Arts was like a dream come true. Not only did L.I.S.H.A. help me become a better dancer, it taught me how to be a better person/student with all that I do. Your generous scholarship will help me achieve my dreams. I would love to go into Dance Therapy or become a Physical Therapist. Thank you for helping me get started on my future."

Thanks so much to the GCREA and everyone who has helped future students achieve their dreams in the arts.

Barbara and Dennis Bengels and family