Letters To The Editor

Representatives

Or Leaders

To the Editor:

On December 2nd, our taxpayers will express their views on the future of St. Paul's. I understand that, technically, the Trustees do not have to respect those views, and may decide on actions contrary to taxpayer recommendations. Frankly, I had expected that, by now, the trustees would have assured taxpayers that any divergent views of their own would be subordinated to those of our taxpayers. Why would it be otherwise?

Silly as it may sound, some trustees may feel that their judgment is superior, that in some way, THEY are the "best and the brightest," and are more aware of what is good for us than we are. They may feel that they were "elected" to make important decisions for us. I remember a letter to the editor some years ago, from Peter Bee, who was not a trustee at that time. He thought that taxpayers, in general, should follow the inclinations of their "leaders," the Trustees. A rejoinder, the following week, suggested that the trustees were supposed to be "representatives," NOT "leaders." I must say, that in the four decades I have lived here, I have found most people to be smart and able, and disinclined to "follow" anybody, anywhere. They know that there are no eligibility requirements to be either a trustee, or a trustee nominator. This is not to put anybody down. We are lucky to have such conscientious volunteers, but their charter has to have sensible limits. Not all trustee business is of the same import. Matters of great financial magnitude and complexity, which reach far into the future, and arouse significant controversy, should be decided by the taxpayers themselves. The property at issue belongs to them, and any tax consequences will be borne by them. The trustees have done what they could, and should now step aside.

The news that Mr. Tom Lamberti may drop out as trustee is not good for the village. His independent spirit, substantial experience, and sound judgment, in my opinion, have been a positive influence on the Board's activity. His focus on principle over process has been good for the taxpayers. I hope that others who feel the same will let him know.

Frank Kiernan

Inaccurate Article

Published by Request

Editor, New York Times

To The Editor:

After reading your gloomy article in the New York Times Long Island section, November 2, 2008 complete with picture of a seemingly desolate Seventh Street, I am compelled to write and offer a more accurate and balanced view of the current state of Garden City.

The recent economic news has undoubtedly affected our Village just as it has every other community on Long Island and the Tri-State Area. Everyone, including Garden City residents, is tightening his belt, spending less and trimming his family budget in order to cope with the tumult in the financial markets.

Unfortunately, the slant of this particular story paints a Village and business district in full depression mode. I'm surprised that your picture of Seventh Street didn't show some tumbleweeds bouncing down the street and a grim family with their furniture tied to their old station wagon leaving for a new life out west!

Your reporter should have incorporated the following facts into her article. First, the Garden City business district is doing well, all things considered. Our store vacancy rate is very low with several new enterprises about to open. natural Food Market (high-end produce/meats and health foods) is opening within the month. We have three new restaurants, including a highly-rated Japanese establishment, Northern Italian, Sushi, and lunch gourmet spots to choose from. A beautiful new bakery has just opened their doors and construction will shortly commence on a three-story retail/residential building in the center of town. Two new women's clothing stores are doing well, as is a new pharmacy. Further, your reference to declining membership of a health club fails to consider the competitive presence of a new high-end club in the newly renovated former Saks building. Finally, your picture of Seventh Street fails to show our very popular al fresco street dining. There are no tables or people now on the street because it's cold and the season is over. You should have been there at the beginning of October when you couldn't get a seat!

Given the economic downturn, Garden City business is surprisingly strong. Your depressing article and photo paint an inaccurate picture of our village that fails to capture the energy and optimism of our business community. Our businesses are tough because they adapt. There are a lot of good reasons that Garden City is, in Tom Suozzi's words, a cool downtown.

The next time your reporter has a case of the economic blues, have her contact me, the Chamber of Commerce office or any number of business owners who are getting it done and thriving.

Roger Eltringham

President,Garden City Chamber of Commerce

Stop The Nonsense

To the Editor:

As a Garden City resident who has already witnessed the overdevelopment of our town leading to flooding and traffic jams during every rainstorm, I am amazed that any of my neighbors would be promoting this plan unless they were being personally compensated. St Paul's fields are the most beautiful playing fields in all of Long Island and the area is already congested on weekends during our children's sporting events. Stop the nonsense and lets get on with the vote and make it binding. Run these bums out of town!! They are trying to swindle us out of our patrimony.

James Atkinson

Response From AvalonBay

To the Editor:

As we approach the village-wide vote on the future of the Main Building at St. Paul's, I'd like to address some of the larger points that have been made recently by residents who have either attended Board of Trustees' meetings or in letters to the editor.

Some of those larger issues include: the re-review of the potential public uses of St. Paul's or a search for "new" public uses; AvalonBay's financial soundness; the allegation that I demanded a three question ballot; will AvalonBay do what it says it will do in its St. Paul's proposal; and concerns about "windfall" profits from either rentals or the potential sale of St. Paul's.

Over the last 15 years, the Village reviewed an extensive list of public uses for St. Paul's. All have been set aside for a number of reasons. The most common reason, however, has been the high cost and risk of dealing with a 125-year-old building that has been virtually unused since 1993.

The fact is there are no "new," workable public use alternatives to review and re-plowing old ground to re-review old, unworkable alternatives will just waste more time and money as St. Paul's continues to age and grow more vulnerable to accelerating exterior and interior deterioration. This, in part, also goes to the question as to why AvalonBay is not supporting a vote on the possibility of a recreational center at St. Paul's. It was our belief, when we first reviewed the potential for getting involved with the effort to save St. Paul's that the Village had moved beyond considering a recreational center since that alternative use had been reviewed in depth and rejected.

Even a cursory review of information posted on the Village's Web site about St. Paul's shows that the cost of renovating the Main Building for any use, public or private, has increased significantly over the years. It will not get cheaper in the future. And while the Village has done a great job in holding off rapid deterioration, the annual bill, which is about $150,000 per year, will not get any cheaper either.

It's the 11th hour. Where are the workable "new" alternatives?

AvalonBay is financially sound and remains committed to its St Paul's proposal and is ready to self-finance the $54 million project cost. I was pleased that the Village's independent financial advisor who reviewed the proposal in detail for The Mayor's Committee called AvalonBay a "financially secure developer."

We decided to get involved in the project when the Village made the decision to seek a private sector solution to preserving St. Paul's and issued an RFP inviting developers to submit proposals. That was over two years ago.

In essence, we responded to the Village's invitation for a private solution to preserving St. Paul's in the same fashion that the Albanese Organization and the joint venture by CANUS and the Committee to Save St. Paul's responded.

Our RFP response went though an extensive review, as did the Albanese and CANUS/CSSP proposals, by the Village and its consultants. The Albanese Organization withdrew from the process, and just before a side-by-side comparison of the AvalonBay and CANUS/CSSP proposals was to be issued publicly, the CANUS/CSSP proposal was withdrawn.

Last October, the Village BOT gave the AvalonBay proposal its conditional approval. When the Village announced the steps to be followed next in the process it was reported in a December, 2007 Village Facts that "the designation of AvalonBay marks the start of a final process to determine whether the Main Building will be saved or demolished."

In that same Village Facts it was noted that "the conditional designation is an acknowledgement that AvalonBay and its redevelopment proposal offer the best available option for saving and restoring the building [St. Paul's] to productive use with minimal or no direct expense to Village taxpayers."

Since last year, our proposal has undergone an even more extensive review by the Mayor's Committee, the Village's Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, Village consultants and residents. It has been a long and costly process. AvalonBay alone has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to respond to the Village's numerous requests for site plan and design revisions, and revisions in other elements of the proposal.

The proposal for St. Paul's that emerged from this process is, in fact, an amalgam of many of the ideas that have been brought forth through the process; and, it seeks to achieve the original intent of the Village which is to save and preserve St. Paul's at no or minimal cost to Village taxpayers.

In response to the allegation that I demanded a three question ballot, I must simply say that I'm being given "credit" where "credit" is not due since I suggested that there be a two question ballot not a three question ballot.

Since the prospect of a village-wide vote was not raised in the original RFP issued by the Village, but evolved earlier this year as a way to gauge public opinion on St. Paul's, I voiced my opinion on the notion of a vote as both a representative of AvalonBay and as a Village resident.

In believe a two question ballot is in keeping with the view expressed in the 2007 Village Facts and the report issued by the Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's in July, which indicated the "mothballing" option would be a waste of time and money since $13.9 million would be spent on a building that could not be used for any purpose and would require about $200,000 per year to maintain.

But, I'm just one person and that's my opinion.

As far as trusting AvalonBay to complete the project as proposed, I believe the Village will have stronger controls over this project than any other project past or future.

Since the Village will continue to own the seven-acre site under the terms of a ground lease, additional controls can be negotiated into that contract to ensure that AvalonBay meets its commitments. And, I have publicly stated my willingness to negotiate such an agreement in comments made before the Board of Trustees.

As far as a potential sale of the building is concerned, AvalonBay has already agreed to the terms of a "participation clause" that will provide the Village with a share of AvalonBay's rental profits and would also provide the Village with a share of any profits from a sale of the building.

The "participation clause" was also reviewed by the independent financial advisor hired by the Village to ensure that AvalonBay's projected costs for the projects and anticipated return would not provide windfall profits for AvalonBay as some have claimed.

That advisor, The Greenwich Group International, LLC (GGI), according to the Mayor's Committee report, called the terms of the financial deal with the Village "fair and equitable." And, as reported by the Mayor's Committee, GGI also indicated that the financial deal with the Village "prevents the developer [AvalonBay] from achieving disproportionate returns at the expense of the Village," and that "it is unlikely that a better deal could be negotiated with another equally-qualified and financially secure developer."

I have also been asked about the cost/revenue projections for the St. Paul's proposal and when I have sought to explain them, my credibility has been challenged. At the same time, it appears that the very same individuals who have questioned the project's financials, which are publicly available on the Village's Web site and have been found to be reasonable by GGI, have not taken the time to either review them or provide specific feedback. In essence, a blanket charge is made with no substance to back it up.

Obviously, there are many other issues that have been raised, but space is limited so they will have to wait for another time. But, let me assure Village residents that we have been listening to their dialogue and comments very closely.

We understand that the Mayor's Committee was given the responsibility of guiding the process and we appreciate all of the hard work done over these many years. We also understand that the Trustees who did not serve on the Committee have ideas and concerns and have expressed them at Board meetings, especially those held since the release of the Mayor's Committee report. And, we understand that there are genuine concerns and opinions expressed by Village residents who have attended BOT meetings, our September Open House sessions, POA meetings, and in the stores in Garden City where I shop.

Most importantly, we think we'll be able to address and accommodate some of those concerns, and will do so publicly.

The village-wide vote on December 2nd will help guide the BOT in its decision-making process on St. Paul's. It is our belief that our proposal provides the Village with a workable opportunity to preserve a unique building for future generations.

Matthew B. Whalen

Vice President, Development

AvalonBay Communities

Time For A Decision

To: Editor:

Is anyone else tired of the whole thing? Somehow, this image of Nero fiddling while Rome burned keeps running through my head - a village bickering over an old building while major decisions and developments (The Hub; Mineola development, etc) continue to happen right in front of us. But, we'll just keep going on and on, repeating the same arguments over and over and over again.

Here is what I know to be true - Over 15 years ago, Garden City purchased St. Paul's School and the near-by fields. No specific plans for the existing buildings were in place at the time of purchase. The Village, through eight Mayors and Boards of Trustees, has investigated numerous options. Suggestions such as relocating the Village Hall, the library or a new high school have been evaluated.

People can complain all they want about current members of the Board of Trustees, but I find it hard to believe that the previous eight mayors and boards over 15 years were all involved in some ingenious, coordinated plot to eliminate these options, as many letter writers seem to suggest. Maybe the truth is that none of these ideas could actually work.

I may not agree with all that has happened, but I do give credit to this Board for trying to resolve the issue. The solution is certainly not to delay a decision again by "mothballing" or spending millions (almost $14 million according to the Mayor's Report) of taxpayer money to "maintain" the building so we can continue the same conversation over and over and over again. On December 2, a poll will be conducted for everyone in the Village. We each can decide what we think is best (Avalon Bay? Demolition?) but let's decide something, not avoid a decision by "mothballing" the building. Like I said, is anyone else tired of the whole thing?

Judy Courtney

Answers STILL Needed

To the Editor:

This is a 3-part letter in which I will address specific questions and/or concerns to either Mr. Mauk, The Mayor and BOT, and the residents.

In the October 17th edition of GC news Mr Mauk was directly asked to answer and reply to several issues by Betsy Andromidas. As subsequent letters to the editor pointed out, Mr. Mauk elected to blast her instead of directly answer some pointed questions or comment on issues she raised. To date I do not believe Mr. Mauk has publicly answered any of these questions. That said on behalf of myself and many residents:

Dear Mr. Mauk:

Please address her concerns and at the very least answer some of her more critical questions that I have repeated below. Additionally, Mr. Mauk, please answer Mrs. Andromidas questions in a public forum so all concerned residents can hear your response.

Some of her questions included:

1.Resignation/Recusal: In February 2008 you resigned as Chairman of Mayor's Committee on St. Paul's stating: "By removing myself from further decisions regarding the AvalonBay redevelopment of St. Paul's, I hope to refocus the discussion on the facts and merits of the redevelopment options, and to keep this important decision from being distorted by irrelevant side issues." Your withdrawal from that committee was a wise choice since your employer CB Richard Ellis holds stock in AvalonBay and continues to represent AvalonBay in the sale of some its assets including the recent $124 million sale* of AvalonWalk to Baker Properties (*2008). Shortly after your resignation, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed designating AvalonBay as the developer. Please explain why you "removed" yourself from the decision-making process but continue to express strong pro-AvalonBay opinions and also continue to vote on issues relating to the AvalonBay development of St. Paul's?

Additionally I know that many residents in addition to Betsy Andomidas, are greatly concerned over the potential tax increase because of the IDA credits even more so now that Obama won, people in the village will really feel the hit when those tax increases go into effect. Please directly answer her tax concerns:

From question #2: TAXES: At the October 2008 Estates Property Owners meeting you said the taxes that AVB doesn't pay are deferred and they are not paid by the residents. It is my understanding that when a property is assessed and taxes are levied; these taxes must be paid even if the aforementioned is receiving an exemption. The "exempted" taxes are then divided up and paid by the residential homeowners (that's us) and the Class 4 small business owners. In effect, we are paying any taxes for which AVB is receiving an exemption.

Please tell us if Betsy is correct. If you believe she is incorrect enlighten us as to why she is incorrect but if she is correct explain how do you deem this "beneficial" to the residents of Garden City?

Furthermore, please answer her concerns from question #4 on the FINANCIAL IMPACT related to students which I have modified and broken down to some extent:

A) Do the residents have control over the # of students that reside and move into in AVB? YES or NO

B) Colleen Foley, our School Board President, has indicated the # of children could be as high as 64. At $15,000 per student per year it would cost us $8,640,000 while AvalonBay will only pay us a total $198,838 during this same period. Please explain how this would save us money if this # of students the School Board projects possibly living at AVB came to fruition?

C) Additionally, if your answer is you simply believe from studies and "averages" there is a likelihood that there will be less students do you not think part of the BOT responsibilities on this issue should be to clearly enumerate the possible tax range consequences if the school Board is correct given that the school board clearly differs with your "study" numbers?

D) You were quoted as saying "we" conducted studies. Please clarify who the "we" is when you made reference to any and all of these studies. Were you referring to we as in you and AVB, or we as in you as in you and the BOT, or we as in the BOT contracting an impartial 3rd party to undertake such studies? I believe the residents need not only access to these studies but to know who the study was undertaken by.

E) Please produce the studies you have referred to showing there will be no additional financial burdens on our police department, fire department and other municipal services.

Mr. Mayor and remaining Board of Trustee Members:

I apologize in advance if the following issue has already been addressed and resolved by the Board. Please let many concerned residents and myself know:

1) Has the Board ever questioned Mr. Mauk on the potential of conflict of interest concern

2) If Yes,: Have they received an answer and if so what were his answers

3) Have they at any point considered requiring him to abstain from any vote relating to Avalon Bay due to a potential conflict of interest.

4) Does the Board have the power to require he abstain on the AVB issue if they feel a conflict of interest may potentially exist

5) If the Board has already questioned him and subsequently decided to allow him to vote on this issue please explain your though process given the facts that:

a. Mr Mauk is employed by CB Richard Ellis (CRBE) and CRBE counts Avalon Bay a long standing, existing and ongoing client. The relationship between CBRE and Avalon Bay is extensive (see www.crbe.com and under media center search "Avalon")

b. Although CRBE is a very large real estate services leader, Avalon Bay's business/account does in fact contribute to the bottom line and financial health of his employer, which likely, directly or indirectly, impacts the employee base of CRBE in a positive manner.

c. CRBE holds stock in AvalonBay

d. Clearly some concerned residents feel the above does represent a conflict of interest even if Mr Mauk does not have direct dealings with Avalon Bay and maintains there is no connection. Do you plan to address their concern?

Thank you in advance for addressing these questions that residents want answers to.

Dear residents:

Considering the Board has elected to hold a non binding poll and that such poll does not contain an option of AVB YES or NO as a majority of residents had wished, many residents feel as if their hands are tied. Some residents I have spoken with feel the intent behind adding mothballing was to "water-down the vote" and fractionalize it even more. Many families think they can vote for demolition and it won't be demolished right away and that it can be re-addressed once we are by AVB. I hope that is true and if we could get clarification on this it would be helpful. While other residents I've spoken with feel a vote for "MOTHBALLING" in the poll is essentially for today, a vote both against the AVB proposal and also against immediate demolition. Many of these individuals I spoke with are not necessarily endorsing mothballing as much as rejecting the other 2 options. Either way the residents that are against AVB need to band together in some capacity to insure we do not split the vote in a manner that Matt Whalen of AVB and some Trustees hope will occur. Lets get by AVB first. I ask that the Committee to Save St. Paul's meet with one of the SAY No to AVB "leaders" and reach a collective decision as to the best way they see to put AVB in the past.

Scott Kiley

EYP Study Not Considered

To the Editor:

The Trustees who support the AvalonBay project claim that they have rejected the idea of consolidating basic Village functions at St. Paul's based upon a study done in 2002. These Trustees are referring to the Einhorn, Yaffee Prescott study in which EYP analyzed the space available at St. Paul's and compared it to the current and future needs of the Village. These Trustees claim that this study led them to conclude that this project was not feasible. That conclusion has now resulted in the AvalonBay proposal and the upcoming vote in which Village residents who are not in favor of AvalonBay must supposedly decide to either demolish or "mothball" St. Paul's.

EYP found that approximately 130,000 square feet of space was available at St. Paul's for Village use. EYP also found that the space needed to consolidate Village functions was also approximately 130,000 square feet.

The EYP report noted: "The groups considered for moving to the St. Paul's main building are: Village Hall administration, police department, fire department, judiciary, recreation department, school administration, the library, and several community organizations." EYP concluded: "Ultimately, the entire building with the exception of the fourth floor could be programmed and used for all Village Hall functions and the school administration."

While the report estimates the cost of renovating St. Paul's at $38 million, it does not discuss the revenues to be derived from the sale of the Library, Village Hall, the senior citizen center and the other properties scattered throughout the village that would no longer be needed. The report also does not calculate the millions of dollars in Village and School taxes to be collected from the private ownership of the real estate no longer needed by the Village. Moreover, the report does not discuss the capital improvement projects that would not be needed just to maintain such architecturally insignificant buildings as the current Library and Village Hall. This newspaper recently reported the expected expenditure of over $2 million at Village Hall. The library underwent a renovation for about $700,000 and is expected to need another $800,000 in renovations from 2009 through 2013.

The report also does not discuss the revenue to be generated from leasing part of St. Paul's to the School District for administration functions. The report estimates that about 21,000 square feet of space would be available for this use. That might generate revenues to the Village of about $10 million over the next 20 years.

Unlike the AvalonBay proposal, there would be no real estate give-aways, tax abatements, etc. Instead, anyone who purchases Village property pays full market value and fully assessed Village and School taxes. Furthermore, parking around Village Hall is generally unused during the weekends when St. Paul's can barely handle its weekend parking needs during peak time sporting events. In short, the parking in place at St. Paul's may be adequate to accommodate both the weekday use of Village Hall and the weekend use of St. Paul's sports.

None of the findings of EYP were seriously considered by the Trustees since they never asked EYP to analyze the net cost to renovate St. Paul's after taking into account the substantial revenues, cost savings and increased Village taxes that would result from the sale of Village property and consolidation of Village functions in one location.

Thus, the next time a pro AvalonBay Trustee tells you that it is impossible to consolidate Village functions at St. Paul's remind them of the findings of the expert they hired in 2002 and ask them why they never asked that expert to determine the net cost (if any) to undertake this sensible project.

After we get past the posturing and spin of those Trustees who still favor AvalonBay, we might one day be able to have a separate conversation about the intangible benefits of making St. Paul's the crown jewel of this Village and the center of Village life.

David J. Sutton

Need Spending Cut

To the Editor:

Recent articles have suggested that a hike in our Garden City taxes can be expected -- increases from 7% to 15% have been floated. With the current state of the economy, and it's effect on our community, we must demand a cut in spending, not new taxes! From 2000 to 2006, Garden City has increased its expenditures by a whopping 35%, or $14.8 million dollars. The year 2000 was not that long ago, and Garden City was still a very wonderful community. If our leaders can not creatively reduce spending, then they must cut expenses (taxes) by at least 10%. Thomas DiNapoli, the state controller, has added our village's revenues and expenses (and our school district's) as well as the financial data for all of New York's counties, cities, towns and villages for your examination. Just go to the website www.openbook-newyork.com. It's eye opening. For a community with very conservative political views, it is surprising that we have allowed ourselves to be so tax and spend. Plus, with Business Week ranking Garden City 6th out of a list of the top 20 cities in the country hit by this meltdown, reducing expenses is the decent and neighborly thing to do for all of us.

Laura Mulhall

Correction

To The Editor:

In the Letter to the Editor, dated October 31, 2008, entitled Key Election Issues, there is a misprint of the original text. The text as originally submitted stated that "Obama voted three times against legislation while in the Illinois State Senate that would have provided protection for babies who survived abortions equal to the protection received by babies who are spontaneously born prematurely.

Elizabeth McPartland

Double Counted?

To The Editor:

The latest polling plans for the proposed St. Pauls development enable the residents of the Central section to be counted twice. I hope this double counting will be resolved in time for the results to have some unbiased meaning.

Jackson Goddard