Help Needed

To the Editor:

On Thursday, November 27, Thanksgiving Day, our family will be coordinating a program out of our home delivering turkey dinners to homebound senior citizens living throughout Nassau County. We expect to be preparing and delivering 250 meals that day - our highest number yet - so we truly need your help!

We are in need of donations of desserts, individual non-carbonated beverages, mini loaves of bread or dinner rolls, turkeys, and cash in order to complete the meals. These items can be dropped off at our home at 35 Maxwell Road, Garden City. Please call us as soon as possible to coordinate a convenient drop off time.

All deliveries will begin at 12 noon on Thanksgiving Day. Each delivery is accompanied by a visit, if so welcomed by the recipient. We deliver to between 35 and 40 different towns within Nassau County; please call us if you are able to help with the delivery of the meals.

This project has become a special part of our family tradition for the past thirteen years, and we invite you to make it part of yours, as well. Your generous donations of food, money, and time have made the deliveries a tremendous success each year. With your help, we can continue to bring a meal and a smile to those who are alone on the holiday.

Feel free to contact us at 746-8331 regarding any part of this program.

We thank you all for your continued support each year!

Melinda and John Alford

Want Answers

To Questions

Printed By Request:

Dear Mr. Mauk,

Your avoidance of my eight questions in the October 17th GC News did not surprise me at all. Thank you for offering to take me out for coffee, however my neighbors and I would prefer answers instead! It is especially absurd to suggest that my remarks were libelous and inaccurate -- it just may be difficult for you to see them in print. I provided references for everything that I wrote--and those references come from public documents. (i.e. "AvalonBay sells many of their properties after an average of 9 years" -- this info is from their 2007 earnings report!) The deal may change from week to week but the facts remain constant. As a Village Trustee and Deputy Mayor, we expect you to substantiate statements that you made at public BOT and POA meetings and many of my questions arose from your very own outbursts, which are on videotape if you'd like to hear and see them again! We would all appreciate it if you would not berate and use the word "libel" EVERYTIME residents and trustees say or write things contrary to your opinions.

I have voiced my opinion about the future of St. Paul's several times, so please do not accuse me of "hiding my feelings". I would love to see the building saved for community use at a reasonable cost. However, if this is cannot be achieved, then it must be taken down. In other words, I'd prefer demolition rather than the AvalonBay deal, simple as that. It is of utmost importance to me, as a resident and taxpayer that all GC residents are given the opportunity to vote on this development proposal. My own personal preference would be an AVB "yes or no" vote combined with a vote "for or against" demolition. In closing I would like to remind you that I am a taxpaying resident, protecting my investment who has unanswered questions. I ask them because I have an open mind; maybe it is you who doesn't like the answers! I ask you not to play the victim and insult and rebuke me--instead please answer my questions with complete transparency and honesty. After all, I plan on living in the village for a long time to come, don't you?

Betsy Andromidas

Votes Should Be Explained

To The Editor:

I am writing in response to both Mrs. Betsy Andromidas' letter regarding the proposed development of the St. Paul's property which appeared in the October 17th issue of The Garden City News as well as Deputy Mayor John Mauk's comments that appeared directly after the letter.

I write as someone who grew up and has lived the majority of my life as a resident of the village and who has served in many leadership positions in village organizations, including past president of the Estates POA and currently Chairman of the Library Board (the views expressed here are solely my own, not the Board's).

Mrs. Andromidas' letter raised many legitimate questions regarding the potential Avalon Bay agreement for the development of the St. Paul's property, including a potential significant increase in students to our schools, tax ramifications, challenges to existing village services and traffic issues. Mr. Mauk unfortunately chose not to answer her questions directly and so provide information to village residents. Instead Mr. Mauk chose to criticize Mrs. Andromidas for her efforts and dismiss her comments as not worthy of a response.

Whether a resident is pro Avalon Bay, is for demolition, is for mothballing or has not made up their mind, they deserve to get full information from the village BOT about the impacts of the proposed development, including answers to the questions raised by Mrs. Andromidas and others. The fact that the village poll to be held will be non-binding makes it all the more important that each village trustee listen to resident's opinions, answer their questions, then explain their own decision on how they will vote on the St. Paul's issue and how they came to that decision.

It is my understanding from Mr. Mauk's comments that he supports approval of the Avalon Bay development. The question remains for Mr. Mauk: If the village poll shows the majority of residents support demolition, will he vote for or even consider voting for demolition?

As majority rules in the election for the position of village trustee, village trustees should consider making the same rule apply here, particularly given the long term ramifications for our village. But ultimately, it will be up to each trustee to decide how the village poll influences their decision on the proposed development. However, it is incumbent on trustees to assure residents that their concerns are being listened to and are being straightforwardly addressed. Unfortunately, this assurance was not given in Mr. Mauk's recent published comments.

J. Randolph Colahan

Residents Need Answers

To the Editor:

I would like to compliment Betsy Andromidas' excellent letter ("Not a Good Fit" 10/17/08), in which she outlined eight reasons why the Avalon Bay project is unsuitable for Garden City. She asked many important questions, which must be answered, so that voters will have the information they need before the December 2nd poll. To date, her questions have not been answered. Instead, Mr. Mauk was able to preview her letter and provide us with a published rant, full of accusations and innuendo. This was disappointing indeed, coming from a Village Trustee. It is very disturbing that Mr. Mauk feels he must bully and shout down not only Ms. Andromidas, but any other resident who asks questions and expresses views on AvalonBay contrary to his own. His accusations of recklessness and libel are ridiculous, since I know that all of Ms. Andromidas' statements are supported by countless hours of research, which have been documented in a binder, and presented to the Board of Trustees on October 2, 2008. The research in this binder does not provide answers, it only raises more questions as to why this project is even being considered for the St. Paul's property.

While there may be other Trustees who favor this development project, Mr. Mauk has emerged as its biggest proponent, even as he concedes that it is "not the best deal for Garden City". At every BOT and Estates POA meeting he loudly shuts down all opposition by claiming that their facts are incorrect. He proceeds to remind us how grateful we should be that AvalonBay has taken on this project to save St. Paul's (with our money, but for their profit!). It is very important for residents to know that their interests are being protected and that every aspect of the AvalonBay proposal has been scrutinized and debated. This project represents a permanent change to Garden City's landscape that cannot be undone. Ms. Andromidas' questions must be answered, especially those relating to parking, school impact, traffic and environmental studies. Furthermore, we expect that they be answered in a patient and dignified way, without the outbursts that have characterized many of his previous responses. The residents of Garden City deserve no less.

Sonja Slattery

Riding

One-Trick Pony

To the Editor:

The Committee to Save St. Paul's certainly has had their share of disagreements with John Mauk over the years. But we agree with him on one thing: the debate over the future of St. Paul's should not be based on attacks on his character. While we continue to question the wisdom of his judgment, we take him at his word when he says that he has no involvement in his employer's business dealings with AvalonBay, and likewise accept at face value his assertion that he derives "no personal benefit" from those extensive business dealings.

We also agree with Mr. Mauk that Village residents should stay focused on the central issue of figuring out how to save the historic St. Paul's building. Where we part company, however, is in his assumption that his way is the only way. It's just not so, no matter how many times he says it.

Mr. Mauk has not been reticent in voicing his opinion that the AvalonBay giveaway is "the only feasible alternative." Giving him every benefit of the doubt, the best case he can make is that AvalonBay is prepared to step into the Village's shoes and preserve the building at "minimal" direct cost to taxpayers. But the devil is in the details. As outlined by AvalonBay, it is willing to do so only on terms that give Village residents almost nothing in return, except for a pretty facade to look at. No lease payments for the entire term of the 99 year lease. Ridiculously low PILOT payments in lieu of taxes. Lots of new construction. Lots of new congestion, traffic, and parking problems for the fields. It's so bad that it has many residents thinking about just tearing the building down. We shudder at the thought that either of these extreme alternatives is even being considered.

Are the choices presented by Mr. Mauk truly the "only feasible alternatives"? Both common sense and history tell us this can't be the case. Fifteen years ago, the Village Board considered, and rejected, a feasible plan to move Village Hall to St. Paul's. It was foolishly rejected in favor of a plan that resulted in the ill-fated CareMatrix assisted living fiasco. That plan, as many residents recall, was judged to be illegal shortly before CareMatrix went bankrupt. Can you imagine the mess the plan would have caused had a bankruptcy judge decided to auction off St. Paul's to pay off CareMatrix's creditors? On the other hand, had the Village gone ahead with the original plan to move Village Hall to St. Paul's, the renovation would have been completed a decade ago, and the cost of the move would be but a distant memory. That was mistake number one.

Mistake number two was made under the tenure of Mayor Barbara Miller a few years ago. Despite her best efforts, which were supported by three of her fellow trustees, she was unable to obtain the requisite super-majority vote to move the Village Library to St. Paul's. Again, there wasn't a real issue whether the plan was feasible. It was a practical, smart, and efficient solution. But it didn't mesh with the goals of trustees like Mr. Mauk, whose mind-set wanted nothing less than to see a private developer step up and take over the building, ostensibly at "no cost" to taxpayers. Instead of working with his fellow trustees on a plan that would have preserved the building for the community, he sided with three other trustees to prevent the residents from even having the opportunity to vote on the Library plan.

More than a year ago, he told the residents, in no uncertain terms, that the ONLY solution to St. Paul's, except for demolition, was to turn St. Paul's into a privately owned condominium development. A well-paid consultant, K. Backus, actively promoted this approach. Her work was wasted. The Committee to Save St. Paul's effectively demonstrated that private ownership was not only unnecessary, but also foolhardy, and the current desperate state of condominium development in this region simply validates our position.

Mauk's latest plan, promoting AvalonBay, is widely derided as excessive overdevelopment and a giveaway of valuable public parkland. Yet, in the face of widespread opposition, he continues to pretend that his main goals are to preserve the main building and protect Village taxpayers. Mr. Mauk, unfortunately, has been riding his one-trick pony for years, but he has yet to acknowledge, and he has been unwilling to give serious consideration, to any plan but his own.

Of course, as many of our residents are now aware, the proposed AvalonBay deal actually carries some very significant costs, and can result in some very significant additional burdens on the taxpayers. AvalonBay is trying to hide, or downplay them, but they are there. Demolition, likewise, has a major cost attached to it. And we are the first to admit that preservation is not a cost free alternative.

But where does that leave us? As concerned residents who have devoted countless hours of time to the cause of saving St. Paul's for public use, we are convinced it is possible to develop a feasible plan to save the historic building at an affordable cost.

Given the current economic climate, we believe that it does not make sense to rush headlong into a choice that will shackle the residents with a plan that we will have to live with forever -- AvalonBay is 99 years and demolition is irreversible. Clearly, this has gone on for a long time, but these are uncharted financial times. We think the much smarter choice is to eliminate the AvalonBay plan as a bad plan, and then navigate carefully through the current economic downturn to find an appropriate solution. We know that the imagination and resourcefulness of our residents will steer us to that goal.

The Executive Committee of The Committee

to Save St. Paul's

Peter Negri, Ed Keating, Michael Ciaffa and

Frank McDonough

Chaotic Governance

To the Editor:

It's time for people to stop listening to their mirrors telling them how wonderful they are and to listen to the Betsys of the village who have done more investigation, more objective analysis, and shown more rational judgment about the Avalon proposal than trustees individually and collectively have done since this 'deal' surfaced. In response to a Betsy letter, a trustee responded with a PACman offensive: a Pompous, Arrogant and Condescending fact-free rant in a big stentorian voice redolent of the savaging of 'Joe the Plumber' for politely questioning a presidential candidate about his socialist taxation/income redistribution scheme.

The Incumbency (er, Community) Agreement virtually guarantees lifetime sinecure, and good manners are not a necessary qualification for unopposed re-election. Nevertheless, a trustee's meat-axe response to a taxpayer's legitimate concern is inappropriate and in a real democratic government would have consequences. It's scary when you can't question a public official about independence and impartiality. In my opinion, the response did not resolve the objection to a trustee's continued participation in vetting Avalon because of his employer's claimed relationships with Avalon; a valid issue has been raised and is unresolved. If a trustee won't or can't provide a satisfactory explanation, the only way to restore trust and confidence and retain respect is to swallow pride and do the right thing - complete recusal from all aspects of the matter.

Village governance is so chaotic that the EPOAs can't even settle on a uniform method of polling residents. Even if they did, the board indicated a survey (or multiple time and money wasting conflicting surveys) will in any event be meaningless, since deciding the fate of the old school ruin is the sole prerogative of trustees, not very comforting when the standard of decision-making during the last ten years has been lack of transparency, delay, indecision, outsourcing to consultants, and other actions suggesting inability to make a disinterested decision. After all, what trustee wants to make a decision that may adversely affect a personal or business relationship? The village has become a laughingstock with planted partly true newspaper articles, and Avalon advertisements "reviewed by the mayor's committee for factual content." Board participation in Avalon advertising is curious. Does review imply validation of content? Bias favoring Avalon? A done deal? If an Avalon employee proposed to its board a lease of Avalon property to a developer for 99 years on terms similar to the 'deal', that employee's intelligence (perhaps even capacity) would probably be questioned. Remember, an incomplete 'deal' was proposed in 2005 and was based on stale costs then, a fact that, if the board does business with Avalon, will inevitably result in re-negotiation, terms more favorable to Avalon, and more years of lousy and chaotic governance.

J J Dolan

Nobody Really Wants It

To the Editor:

I received a strong response to my letter to the editor (St. Paul's $100 Million, Garden City News, August 1, 2008), with more than 100 replies from neighbors. In that letter, I showed how the cost of purchasing and maintaining the St. Paul's property, including the proposed AvalonBay transaction, will total over $100 million in today's money; I suggested that the Trustees' approach to St. Paul's -- save the building at any cost and ignore the needs and desires of the residents -- is wrong and it has resulted in the diminution of the property's value; and I suggested that the best way to determine if residents really want to save the building would be to seek voluntary private funding from the residents themselves.

More than 90% of those who responded to me were supportive. Those who disagreed all focused on the same issue: their wish to "save" the building. In each conversation, I asked them if they are willing to contribute funds to restore the building so that it could be put to economic use. In every case, the answer was no. This includes responses from various local "committee" members, alumni of St. Paul's, and even people opposed to the AvalonBay deal. Each wants the rest of us to pay for the building through increased taxes.

I have not found a single person who is willing to spend a penny of their own money to invest directly in refurbishing the building. That speaks loudly. Clearly, the building should be demolished and something that residents want should be built -- a recreation center/sports complex makes sense and has been the choice of most residents all along. The complex would be devoted to residents and would generate revenues, thus lowering taxes. Interestingly, many residents are willing to fund this project with their own money.

Frederick Leuffer

Our Own Ruins?

To the Editor:

As our journey along the St. Paul's road continues, a further thought arises....another option.

Should the Avalon proposal be rejected (and it should) and should taxpayers desire to minimize their payments (and who doesn't), why not begin to think of the St. Paul's schoolhouse as the St. Paul's ruins?

Why incur demolition or maintenance expenses? Why not construct a tasteful fence around the structure, turn off the lights, and let nature take its course. Europe has its ruins, why not Garden City?

Those who are nourished by the sight of St. Paul's can gaze to their hearts' contents. St. Paul's will be there for an eon. Reunion picnics of the salvation Committee can be held from time to time.

After many years, of course, citizens might see funeral corteges of Executive Committee members en route to final resting places pausing at the ruins in final tribute.

Vincent J. Maroney

Critical Concerns

To The Editor,

I was pleased to see that Betsy Andromidas took the time to detail numerous issues that remain unanswered concerning the Avalon Bay Project. The issues that she raises challenge any justifications which have been given to date by the supporters of the Avalon Bay project. The Eight issues detailed in the letter ("Not a Good Fit" 10/17/2008) are critical concerns that deserve thoughtful and factual responses from the Village Trustees.

Unfortunately, John Mauk, the main proponent of he Avalon Bay Project on the Board of Trustees, has attacked those who have the nerve to challenge his position and he has made his attacks personal. A more prudent response would be to answer these concerns and issues and thereby allow the poll scheduled for December 2nd to be decided on the merits.

Michele Beach Harrington

Express Comments On St. Paul's

Printed By Request:

Board of Trustees, Incorporated Village of Garden City

Honorable Sirs:

I am a resident of the Village of Garden City. I have been a resident of the Village since 1968, my husband is a third generation resident and our children are fourth generation residents.

It was, and still is, my understanding that the St. Paul's property and school were bought in 1993 with the express intent of retaining "Village control over one the largest undeveloped land tracts in Nassau County; 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 field house and gymnasium/auditorium and preservation of an architectural jewel which defines our special historical character... In sum [the] acquisition [would] provide the Village with control over its destiny and comfort those who fear destructive development. " (See Village Facts, St. Paul's/January 1993) (emphasis added).

The current proposal to develop our architectural jewel and surrounding 7 acres into a multi-family apartment complex is exactly the kind of use and development which was sought to be prevented when the 48.6 acres were purchased with the consent of an overwhelming majority of the voting residents in 1993. After all, developing a multifamily complex in the heart of our single family residential district represents urbanization of our suburban way of life, a concept our Board has publicly condemned (Please see Mineola American, 2/22/08).

As you are well aware, earlier attempts by developers to privatize the building and surrounding property were struck down by the Supreme Court and Appellate Division in the Kenny case in 2001 as a violation of the Public trust. (Permission for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied in 2002).

Yet this Board has, in my opinion, wasted considerable tax payer dollars pursuing yet another privatization project without first satisfying the condition precedent of obtaining State Legislative approval for private use as was dictated by the Courts in the Kenny case.

The current course of action clearly contradicts the original stated goals for the lands/building, is in contravention to Kenny holding and the Board's own condemnation of urbanization and is, to say the least, troubling. It is my hope and desire that all, or as many as possible, of the Village residents will make their feelings known on whether to proceed or not with the proposed private apartment project and that the Board will be guided accordingly.

Therefore, the purpose of my letter is to advise the Board of Trustees that I am against the lease or sale of the St. Paul's property including the approximately seven acres upon which the beautiful School building sits to Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. as is currently contemplated under the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") dated February 20, 2008 or any other entity for private purposes.

It is my desire that the entire St. Paul's parcel including the building and the seven surrounding acres sought to be developed under the MOU remain in the public trust for public use.

As has been stated by former Mayor Brian T. Deveney "there are a myriad of municipal uses available for the buildings" (Village Facts, St. Paul's/January 1993) let us now finally get to the business of pursuing those rather than private development of our precious public lands.

Alison Metzler

PS: for those residents wishing to express their views directly to the board of trustees you may send an e-mail directly to the village at stpaulscomments@gardencityny.net

Not A Trustee

To the Editor:

Mathew Whalen of AvalonBay is now apparently a Village Trustee. He dictates major policy decisions to our elected Trustees. As an un-elected, "uber" trustee Whalen decides the three choices on the upcoming ballot. Whalen directs the elected Trustees to place two other choices (mothballing or demolition) on the ballot so that the AvalonBay choice will appear more appealing. If Whalen doesn't get his way he threatens to withdraw the AvalonBay project. Whalen could have proposed other ballot choices, such as a new school, state-of-the-art recreation, education and community center, Village Hall, a Library, a park, a pool, etc., but those choices would make AvalonBay's proposal look less attractive. Whalen demands that Garden City residents decide the fate of St. Paul's now and only wants us to have the three choices he selects for us.

It is time that Whalen and AvalonBay take this three card monty game someplace else. Garden City residents will not be manipulated by such non-sense.

David J. Sutton

Too Quick?

To the Editor:

As a village, we are acting WAY too quickly on the issue of St. Paul's.

You may have read about it- the village purchased the beautiful old building and surrounding lands, time passed, then everyone realized, oh my, something MUST be done, more time passed, letters to the editor were written, everyone started fighting, meetings were held, citizens were rallied, village trustees were shamed, more time passed, more editorials were written, even MORE letters to the editor appeared, ad nauseam.

I am a ten year resident of this town. No, I did not grow up here- in fact I grew up in the boring over- commercialized, strip-mall heaven of suburban Memphis, Tennessee. I do believe that the past should be preserved IF POSSIBLE (yes, non-natives CAN feel this way) and old historical buildings should be saved WHEN FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. I have followed the arguments as they have come fast and furiously into my line of vision. I have a funny feeling that this latest round of punches- Is Avalon Bay a good fit? Will the property owners associations poll their residents? Will the polls be valid? Will there be hanging chads?- won't result in a knockout either.

And all I can say is- what's the rush? We've only been arguing the finer points of St. Pauls preservation/renovation/demolition for about ten years or so. Why act now, when we've paved a perfect path to a natural solution? Let's keeping on arguing our circular arguments for ten more years....or even twenty. In fact, let's divide the town and pass down ALL the arguments to our children. We could even create our own version of the McCoys vs. Hatfields in a uniquely Garden City way. The building should be well on its way to crumbling to dust naturally by then and then nobody wins! Isn't that really what we all want?

Elizabeth Sullivan Iraj

From Central

Casting

To The Editor:

As Cecil B. DeMille might have cast it - auditioned Theatrical roles to be filled:

1. The Golden Calf - St. Paul's

2. The Serpent in the Garden (City) - Avalon Bay

3. The Judas Goat - John ("do you have a problem with that" Mauk

The presence of Avalon Bay is not desired anywhere within the municipal boundaries of our Incorporated Village of Garden City.

John T. Harris

Vote Must Count

To: The Editor:

Repeatedly and sadly in many instances, I have written about the 'apparent' incompetence of some of our 'civil leaders' concerning their inability to develop a viable proposal, and to reach a credible and acceptable agreement on the St. Paul's affair and which by now, has become an uncontrollable and ugly fiasco. I even dare say that this sordid, unfinished tale has even some resemblance to a Machiavellic episode. Perhaps someone's secret agenda is to try and divert our attention from other more important issues such as our economy in crisis, tax increases, job losses, recession, etc. etc...or perhaps they are busy developing an austerity plan...? After almost 15 years of total inaction in the St. Paul project, I must conclude that someone must be enjoying this by now ridiculous and humorless game successfully converted into a tragic-comedy. My 'last' suggestion submitted in my letter of Sept. 26th published in The Garden City News was to get rid, to demolish this historic-artistic but costly and useless monument. I felt (and still do), this action to be the wish of the majority of the residents. A green open space for the benefit of our children and future generations. This is the most viable and effective solution. The fact is that no other alternatives exist. After writing four or five letters concerning this by now nauseating affair, I have decided to call it quits and to wait with a mixture of incredulity and skepticism for the day when we, the residents, are given the rightfully opportunity to express by vote our opinion in this issue. It is well overdue and we, the residents, should have the last word. It is our undeniable right. Only them shall we feel that we have been heard, our wishes respected and the Committee has finally put aside self-interest, politics, bickering and hypocrisy. The arrogance of one member of the Committee when he recently replied to a resident attendee question: "Do you work for Avalon Bay"..? He responded: "Yes, do you have a problem with that"...? Such response is totally unacceptable . All that is required is a two part ballot: (1) Yes or No to Avalon Bay. (2) Yes or no to demolition. The Committee, the residents, the BOT, the Mayor, et al, have spent an inordinate amount of time, resources and efforts not to mention some stomachaches, headaches, and multiple others unwelcomed physical discomforts trying to end this absurd episode. Because of this procrastination over the St. Paul's fiasco, important issues that require immediate attention had been relegated to lower levels of attention. Where we now need to concentrate our full and undivided attention is on our 'SCHOOL TAXES', the effects of the economic crisis on our Village and the proposed tax increase by the County Executive.

Recently, I received my School Tax bill and felt ill looking at the very significant increase. The 'new' amount due is placed on top of a large redish square cube. I wondered if this similarity to blood-red color is just a coincidence or perhaps a symbolic message of additional bad news to come. Year after year our School taxes keep going up and up. Last year I protested and lamented the increase but to no avail. Does anybody cares..? According to a letter written by Mr. Angelo DiPippo published in The Garden City News on October 17th, a very substantial amount of this money goes to increase the already very fat salaries and incredible high benefits of the Superintendent, his Deputy, Principals, Assistants, Deputies and the rest of the School crew. I guess that in these times of extremely severe financial crisis to expect more with less from our School brass would be just unthinkable, a dream. Twenty-five years ago when my boys attended our Schools, they had, practically, the same type and amount of physical activities, e.g. Football, Lacrosse, Gymnastics etc.etc. however, our School taxes were a fraction of what they are today. I don't believe than any added and extra activities would require such considerable tax rate increases. It would be interesting, instructional, informative and welcome to receive a detailed expense statement not just the usual available 'summary'. Our County Executive Mr. Suozzi, has recently announced a considerable tax increase to homeowners of Nassau County in order to balance the budget. That leaves me thinking and wondering how am I going to 'balance' my own budget. Our tax burden is just unbearable. We, the residents, have been punished and abused for a very long time. Let's also be aware that a substantial number of Village residents have been deeply affected by the loss of jobs in Wall Street. Finally, I shall once again repeat that acceptance of the Avalon Bay proposal will only increase our taxes. Regretfully, I must also say that I just don't believe Avalon's statements. Let me once again repeat what I said in my letter of August 8th. "I am also quite suspicious since Avalon published in the local press during February and March full page advertisements praising the merits of their proposal. What really caught my attention was the following: 'Avalon Bay has the financial resources needed to save and preserve the main building at St. Paul without major taxpayers expenses. After I questioned these statements, they immediately deleted, as if by magic, those words from their further advertisements. What and who are we suppose to believe...? Let's decide at the ballot booth. Our vote must count.

Antonio Moreno