RSS Feed
|
|
|
|||||
|
Letters To The Editor
To The Editor: Garden City residents are being treated by their government to the spectacle of a private negotiation sealing the fate of St. Paul's without sufficient public detail from a developer with political and financial savvy. With the three public presentations last week by Avalon Bay, Garden City residents are, unwittingly, participating in a kabuki ritual between the developer and the Village. In jeopardy, in the deal making, is whether or not the St. Paul's new development will be in scale with the historic building and in sync with its architecture. Since the Village is conducting these negotiations in private, and rather than informing the Village residents of its intentions, sends out the developer to test the waters without specific plans, the public, at this stage of the negotiations, is at a loss to understand the scope and particulars of the proposed development. Since the village has already chosen Avalon Bay, the real negotiating is now underway. The public is given presentations by the developer without a scale model of the project and is requested to react. The residents are given no indication of what the public amenity will be within the historic structure and is asked to approve. The Village residents should be concerned lest the promised public amenities fade away or are reduced to fringe status. What is at stake is the disposition of public trust property. This land is the most powerful negotiating tool the public has. This opportunity should not be squandered or sold short in order to maximize private profit. Based upon the history of the Village of Garden City with this type of development, the condos on the Garden City Hotel site, there is no reason for Village residents to be optimistic as to what the project will look like. It is hard to believe that for all the years expended in developing a plan for the hotel condo site, what was realized was so awesomely bad. Alexander Stewart created something at St. Paul's of lasting value and what is done at the site should honor this legacy. A scale model of the project together with a detailed description of the public amenities in the St. Paul's historic structure should be presented to the public as soon as possible so an informed opinion on the Avalon Bay proposal can be made. James M. Kenny The Numbers Have To Work To the Editor: Last Tuesday, I attended the regular Estates section P.O.A. meeting, and stayed for the Avalon Bay presentation following. After regular business, the P.O.A. president, in anticipation of the presentation, indicated that the purpose was to provide better background and get community reaction. No final figures were going to be given, as the plans had not been finalized. He remarked, as if it were a given, that people wanted to save the building. As I had counted the house, (about 60) I asked how he would convey to the trustees the sentiments of the full population of the Estate Section. He indicated that there would be two more similar sessions, and based on questions and statements, he would extrapolate from them as if they reflected the entire population. My reaction, after the presentation, was that such an insight was not possible, even for the people in attendance, themselves. This is not to criticize the presentation by Mr. Whalen, of Avalon Bay. He was methodical and plain spoken, and was not at all over- exuberant. His company had been asked by Garden City advocates to develop the 7 acres of property containing the St. Paul's main building, with the proviso that most of that building be saved. The building and grounds would, essentially, be a gift. His first task, then, would be, together with the advocates, to come up with a full site plan and concomitant financial agreements. The operational context for the project would involve his providing architectural and engineering requirements, site preparation, and construction. All of this at his expense. Many millions of dollars up front. He then would find tenants for the development living units, the revenue stream from whom would pay off the development investments and the ongoing operating expenses. Pretty straight forward so far. The problem is that the numbers have to work for Avalon Bay. The rents have to be reasonable, and if they don't provide return on investment up to the company standard, they will have to be subsidized, in this case, by Garden City Taxpayers. Logical enough. The first area of subsidy would be the space we asked to be set aside in the renovated building for Village activities. Such space, not yet finalized, would not be available for income producing units, so the Village would have to provide an equivalent return in rent. At a recent point that rent would be approximately $450,000. The major area of subsidy would be the first 35 years of the lease, where Avalon Bay would make much reduced payments than real estate market values require for everyone else. One estimate is that the total subsidy in that PILOT period would be around $35 million. These figures were not referred to at the meeting, but, one woman, when she got the concept, said "You mean we are going to have to pay your taxes?" Mr. Whalen, again, reminded us that the numbers have to work, or the project can't go forward. Mr. Tom Lamberti, Village Trustee, has explained all of this much better at Trustee meetings, much to the displeasure of Trustee advocates of the project. His concern is much like that of Mr. Whalen, who says the numbers have to work for him. Well, they have to work for us, too. Mr. Mauk is reported to have said that if this doesn't work, we'll have to demolish the building. Maybe, that time has come. Frank Kiernan Disappointed In Proposal To the Editor: After hearing the Avalon Bay proposal at the EPOA meeting, I was extremely disappointed. They have not even bothered to draw up pictures of the free standing apartments, stating that they would just blend in with the current building. Giving any community space is going to be done very grudgingly. Matt Whalen stated that the Chapel is a problem because it is in the middle of "his private area" and how can he do that? He also asked how much we can pay for rent of the community space. Interestingly, Avalon Bay has been looking around Garden City to see what other space is available to us. The Board had stated that they asked for proposals that would cost Garden City little or nothing. The Avalon Bay proposal will cost us much more that the $100 a year per family that Canus stated. The cost with Avalon Bay will be immeasurable and not just in dollars. I feel the Board made a huge mistake by eliminating Canus so quickly. Canus has never defaulted on a project and they certainly seemed to have the feel of the building and Garden City sentiment in their plan. Canus only wanted control for some 25 years and then the building would be returned to us freely. When Trustee Mauk made the motion to remove Canus from consideration, he said that Canus wanted a 99 year lease and Garden City did not. However, it turns out that Avalon Bay requires the 99 lease and now that's okay. Trustee Lamberti had requested that both the Avalon Bay and Canus plans be presented to the public side by side, but this was refused. Obviously, he was the only one who wanted transparency. What was the Board afraid of that on something so important it could not present both proposals? Now we are faced with a take it or leave it proposal and Avalon Bay is obviously dealing from strength as the sole party involved. I think Garden City has to rethink its form of government. The Gentlemen's Agreement has past its effectiveness. Nancy Poz Need Alternatives To the Editor: Before I begin to complain about the St. Paul's saga, let me confess that I have known four of our current Village trustees for over twenty years. They are well intentioned and honorable men. Yet, I am deeply troubled by what is happening to our Village. I am concerned that if the Village Trustees can't erect a simple fence at St. Paul's, they may be unable to deal with the far more vexing issue of what to do with the St. Paul's building. I am also troubled that the recent "Village Facts" about St. Paul's repeats ad nauseum that if we do not make a deal with AvalonBay, St. Paul's will be demolished. I am certain that AvalonBay was happy to read that, but I am disturbed that there is no alternative plan for the use of the property. Are the Trustees seriously suggesting that there will simply be a big hole in the ground if AvalonBay's demands are not met? Where is the artist rendering of what might replace the St. Paul's building? As many of us know from reading the classic book on successful negotiating techniques, Getting to Yes, it is never advisable to enter important negotiations without "BATNA" - the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Without BATNA you are at the mercy of those you negotiate with. We do not have BATNA. We have spent millions of dollars on experts, misguided litigation and basic maintenance of St. Paul's since it was purchased. I am appalled that there is no legal, alternative plan for St. Paul's that conforms to the bond vote taken over a decade ago. The property can legally be used for municipal, educational and/or recreational purposes. There has never been any consultant hired by the trustees to seriously explore these legal uses. Before any further negotiations occur, I suggest that such an expert be hired to perform a full analysis of alternative, legal uses for St. Paul's. Let me suggest a few uses with some basic financial considerations (people may quibble with some of these numbers, but at least we can start a dialogue.): 1) Sell the three quaint (and exceedingly expensive to operate) K-1 schools so that homes can be built on those properties (total estimated sale price - $10 million) Consolidate those schools at the St. Paul's property. The new homes will generate millions of dollars in Village and School taxes in the next twenty years and save Village residents millions of dollars in operating three small, inefficient schools. Remember, AvalonBay is looking for a massive real estate tax give-away - a very dangerous precedent. There is no such tax give away suggested in this letter. 2) Sell the middle school building, the administration building and fields. Build homes on those properties. The sale of the middle school and administration properties would generate about $12 million and millions of dollars in tax revenues for the Village and the schools. Consolidate the middle school and administration at St. Paul's. 3) Sell the massive Garden City High School property for residential development thus generating about $20 million and relocate the High School at the St. Paul's property. 4) Sell the Village Hall property, the library property and other Village properties for either commercial or residential uses and generate about $15 million in revenues. Put all of those Village functions (with the exception of fire and police if it becomes too controversial to move them) at the St. Paul's property. The Village properties that were sold would go back on the tax rolls thus generating millions of dollars in Village and school tax revenues. These are just some of the many legal uses that can be made of the St. Paul's property. Please note that I am not suggesting that the St. Paul's building be saved at any cost. I referred to putting these uses at the St. Paul's property, not necessarily within the current building. There are many talented architects who live in this Village ready to volunteer their time. Certainly, there is a way for them to replicate the majestic beauty of the St. Paul's façade, preserve and re-use some of the most important interior architectural features and pay homage to the incredible history of this Village and the Stewart family. The new building may be smaller or it may be larger or it may simply preserve the original façade. Aren't we entitled to "state of the art" educational or village facilities? Isn't this Village all about the quality of education? Isn't that why we moved here? If so, why are we settling for inferior facilities requiring millions of dollars of repairs just to maintain them? AvalonBay is not the only game in town despite what the Village trustees claim in "Village Facts". St. Paul's belongs to this Village. Just remember, that if AvalonBay gets St. Paul's they will promptly erect that fence around their property. However, their fence will have a sign on it: "Private Property - Keep Out!" David Sutton Texaco Parking Not Needed To the Editor, I feel I must comment on a story I read regarding the Texaco site on Franklin and Seventh. At a recent Trustees meeting, Mr. Watras suggested the vacant site be purchased by the village and converted to a parking lot...correct, a parking lot. I literally did a double take and had to re-read the headline of the article. In all the NIMBYism and all the poor plan-ning Long Island has seen, I truly think that this suggestion may be the most poor and most absurd of any of them. This is a real head, neck, and back scratcher. The village has PLENTY of parking, and in my estimation, too much. Perhaps the Social Services building should be razed and made into a really big parking lot? The only times the lots are really full are during various parades and/or festivals in town. Is the problem that the trustee cannot 100% of the time park within 2 feet of the store he wishes to shop in? This is one of the main problems with the village...little foot traffic, especially on Franklin. 7th gets pretty good foot traffic, but it certainly could be better. The issue stems from the fact that the downtown functions like a reverse strip mall whereby patrons simply park and walk right into the store they want to go to...no meandering, no 'window shopping.' I think this hurts the businesses and atmosphere of the town. Perhaps requiring people to enter stores street side may help? Why would the village pay for property and take it off the tax rolls when there is a developer looking to build NOW? It's makes little to no sense. This is THE main corner in the village, where the 2 major streets meet. How can a parking lot be a good move? It's insane. It is virtually the antithesis of what a vibrant commercial area is supposed to look and function like. And for what, 25-30 parking spots? Is that the deal breaker that will send the town into overdrive? I can see it now..."Hey, did you hear about that new parking lot on 7th and Franklin...man, it's sweet." There's really little more to say in this. It's a terrible move. The village should be looking to have the developer build 3-4 stories (like buildings across Franklin) with more condos and/or office space rather than the 2 that was proposed...be a little bold, think about getting people and stores downtown, increase tax revenues. The trustee said there is no parking and too much development. Where is this development? Really, where? The Texaco site and the former Saks site that is not even large enough as it is. Why is that huge parking lot in the middle of a prime retail strip still there? Franklin and 7th, along with the entire downtown needs MORE development, not less. It needs a critical mass of office, retail, and residential. It needs to better utilize the precious and valuable space we have, because there's not going to be any more of it...and taxes keep on rising. Buildings on Franklin should be taller, with more offices and/or residential above retail. One story doesn't cut it. There are a number of 2, 3, and 4 story buildings there already...why not try to encourage more? There should be NO parking lots of vacant parcels along the main strips...develop them in with tax-paying buildings. Develop an entirely new block on Stewart, across from Village Hall...too open a space filled with parking spots. Enhance the downtown, build the tax base. Sell the library space to a developer...extend the 7th street retail. It's a perfect location for retail office/condos, right next to a train, across from the hotel. Encourage the new owner of the hotel to keep the hotel rooms that are there intact, and develop the parking lots that are rarely full into high end residences, with a destination spa and retail...make it as great as it once was and make it a destination for people on LI, in the region, and all over the country. Develop the Social Services parcel into a slick, mixed use development that will enhance the downtown, the tax rolls, and the village in general. It's being done all over America with great success. Imagine a development with tons of underground parking to allow for hundreds of new condos along with thousands of sq. ft. of office space and retail. Look at developments like this, http://www.rockvilletownsquare.com/, for once example. People living next to the development...close off their street and make them permit parking only...they would not be negatively affected, but would have a great new place to go to...along with the rest of GC and perhaps Nassau, Suffolk, and Queens. Franklin should implement traffic calming measures to reduce to 'highway' fell of the road. Force drivers to stop every block or 2 and develop the little used (except by 7th and Stewart) parking lane into a landscaped median to beautify the area. There are a number of other ideas to make Garden City the best downtown on Long Island, and one of the best in the NY region. I hope that the powers that be are open to them. Please, don't shut out ideas that make sense because of traffic issues. They can be dealt with. You have to know where you are...you're not in Kansas...or even Oyster Bay Cove. You are smack in the middle of one of the most populated, dense, and affluent counties in America. It's time to embrace that the village can concentrate development for all the good reasons, while keeping the beauty of the residential areas currently in place. It's not impossible, and it's becoming more and more important...for now and the future. Bill Sweeney Baby Owl Saved To the Editor: This week my neighbor found a baby Screech Owl stranded and alone in her driveway, we called The Garden City Bird Sanctuary for help. Rob Alvey dropped everything and drove over to get the owl and take it to a bird rescue group. I would like to publicly thank Rob and the Bird Sanctuary for their responsiveness and devotion. Loretta Hahn Attack Unfair To the Editor: I am writing this letter in total disgust to the attack submitted by Ms. Fiona Budin regarding her comments pertaining to Mr. Ryan's view concerning the recent winter festival concerts. I do not personally know either Ms. Budin or Mr. Ryan and as such can not vouch for their personal opinions or beliefs. However, for Ms. Budin to attack Mr. Ryan as anti-Semitic and ignorant calls into question her intelligence and tolerance. In this day and age it seems the norm to play the race card, religious intolerance, or any other label against those whose opinions or beliefs run counter to our own. Rather than considering other views and presenting logical and intelligent counter-arguments, it is simply convenient to label them as racist, anti-"fill in the blank", etc. and attack the individual. I can only hope that further discourses concerning this issue are directed more at concrete agreements and less at personal attacks and innuendos. William Cleary March For Life To The Editor: On January 22, 2008, forty dedicated and faithful souls from St. Thomas the Apostle and St. Joseph's Parishes and their friends made the trip down to Washington for the 35 th annual March for Life protesting against the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Over 200,000 individuals particpated in the March. It was the largest turn out since 1992 - when I started marching on behalf of the unborn child. Long time veterans of the March said it was the largest March ever! The vast majority of the participants were teenagers and college students. After arriving at the Ellipse at around noon, we listened to speakers for about two hours. The March started at about 2 p.m. and ended at about 4 p.m. Various members of our group then went to Congresswoman McCarthy's office or to Senator Schumer and Clinton's office to object to their support for abortion. Again, Congresswoman McCarthy refused to meet with us to defend her support for abortion. Others, my self included, went to Senator McCain's office to express our support for his pro-life views. We arrived back in West Hempstead at about 11:30 p.m. Father Rudy of of St. Anne's Parish led us in a rosary on the way down and on our return. Everyone was tired, but at the same time rejuvenated knowing that we are doing God's work in fighting for the life of the unborn child. Robert L. Dougherty
|
for larger version       |
||||
