Rebuts Lighthouse Letter

To The Editor:

Regarding the letter from July 31, 2009, concerning my blog, Let There Be Light(house) ("Lighthouse Political Strategy," from Christine Mullaney). As the sole author of this site, I would like to set the record straight on a few of the issues raised by Ms. Mullaney.

First of all, the author condescendingly refers to me as "independent advocate" throughout the letter, suggesting my objectivity and independence are not what I claim they are. Let me be as clear as I can: I started this site of my own volition, I run it in my spare time, all articles and Twitter postings are mine and mine alone, and I know details about the Lighthouse Project and the State Environmental Review (SEQR) process because I took the time to research the issues and get my facts straight. When I speak on my site, I speak only with the moral authority I have gained as a writer with a loyal reader base of citizens who, like you, only want the best for their home. I am what I say I am: a 20-something resident of North Bellmore who truly believes the Lighthouse Project is the right move for Long Island, and I have never made a dime off of my site.

These references are made worse because the author did not make clear her position with the Eastern Property Owners' Association, which is ironic since she seems to have accused me of not honestly representing myself. This may be clear to residents of Garden City, but it was not made clear in the letter itself. To make matters worse, she twisted the words and the original intent of the post "Hub vs. Lighthouse," which was addressing a specific comment made by Nassau Legis. Dave Denenberg at the Nassau County Planning Commission. I was making the distinction between the Hub as a Nassau County program and the Lighthouse as a private development, and I believe my characterization of Garden City as being "in a lather" about light rail was accurate when you consider that the author claims light rail will "destroy [Garden City]" without offering a shred of proof.

Long Island is at a pivotal point in its history, and the Town of Hempstead is considering a project that will, much like Levittown did, shape our destiny for generations to come. Much like returning GI's sought their American Dream in suburbia, we must now stand up and decide how Long Island will be suburbia in the 21st Century. Long Island is in trouble economically and falling behind the rest of the region. We just saw OSI Pharmaceuticals depart Long Island for Westchester County, killing the dream of Long Island as a center for biotechnology. In a former job as a management consultant, I reverse commuted from Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station to clients in New Jersey, Westchester, and Connecticut. Those trains are packed with reverse commuters, when at the same time eastbound Long Island Rail Road trains are practically empty. With new policies that preserve our suburban way of life and improve it in certain ways, those people could have jobs on Long Island and contribute to the local economies of villages such as Garden City. In the same vein, I hope there will be a new commitment to apartment-style housing on Long Island for younger people such as myself. I feel I am being forced off Long Island, and thousands others like me feel the same way. If more of an effort was made to retain your children - all of us educated with your tax dollars - we could be house-hunting and starting families in communities like Garden City in 10 years. We could be members of local civic groups and work together to create a better home for everyone, but instead we are constantly pushed away and told that we are the problem. The Lighthouse Project will not (and by nature cannot) solve these problems by itself, but it can be a great catalyst to a new system that preserves the classic suburban way of life while still moving us forward in intelligent ways.

Justified or not, Garden City has a reputation as a community full of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mentality, and I have admittedly been very harsh when discussing the village's actions on my blog. I attended the Eastern Property Owners' Association annual meeting on June 1, 2009 to hear Supervisor Murray speak about the Lighthouse. As the Supervisor was discussing all the proposed projects in the area, and the time it takes to perform a thorough environmental review, a resident stood up and asked "How long does it take to say no?" This resident received a thunderous round of applause, the loudest of the night. On some level, it becomes a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation, because it is hard to take people who complain about everything seriously. There may be issues, such as water quality, that should be discussed in an open, honest manner, and in the context of solving the problem, not derailing the project. Despite what some residents seem to believe, Garden City is one voice, and its will should not override the broad base of support that has become clear through all the public meetings and outreach seminars held about the Lighthouse. Despite active calls to arms in this paper and the Garden City Life, the turnout was still overwhelmingly in favor of the Lighthouse Project, and two Garden City residents spoke strongly in favor of the development.

I have said it on my blog, and I will say it here: I do not understand the concerns voiced by many Garden City residents about the Lighthouse. In a piece from Garden City Life that ran on July 31, 2009, a village trustee said he did not want to raise traffic issues because he feared this would be seen as an endorsement of mass transit. To me, this is shockingly small thinking and far more disingenuous than anything the author accuses me of doing. To Ms. Mullaney's point: when I said I considered mass transit "inevitable," I was sharing my opinion, which is the same as if I had said Mad Men is the best show on television. I have called members of Congress and found there was not a funding request for any light rail solution included in the 2010 Transportation bill - which means the issue is off the table until at least 2015. I lived right across the street from a light rail for 3 years when I was in college (much closer than any Garden City residents would be if this system were pursued at a later date), and it never once disturbed my quality of life. In fact, the Long Island Rail Road, which is 1.5 miles from my home, makes more noise. I do not understand these concerns, but I hope Garden City residents that are concerned will propose a viable alternative.

In the same vein, the village that lies in the shadow of the 8th largest mall in the United States, and which used to be home to the "Fifth Avenue of Long Island," is suddenly complaining about unfair retail competition. If the Lighthouse can become an economic engine and bring needed jobs and investment to the area, it will, like a rising tide, lift all boats. A successful Lighthouse Project can only benefit commerce in Garden City, and if Garden City can offer something to carve out a comfortable niche for its commercial districts, everybody wins. I am an entrepreneur myself, and I believe the best way to deal with "unfair" competition is to create an unfair advantage in your favor.

Now, on to the issue about "Talking Points" the author brings up. Once again, the simplest explanation is the correct one. I had many readers emailing me asking me to proofread and give tips on their public comments. In addition, a poll on my site said readers wanted guidance, and 120 postings on the blog are hard to review and coordinate in real-time. Therefore, I gave my readers what they asked for and condensed a lot of my main arguments on why the Lighthouse is a good project. I did not receive the blessing from the Lighthouse Project or anybody else for that.

Ms.Mullaney may have succeeded in her goal to make Garden City residents aware of my site, but I think it says something about her that she chose to write a letter to the Garden City News instead of taking her issues directly to me. To be clear:

There is a link on every post on my site to email me - the author did not.

The site allows comments - the author did not comment.

There is a link to follow and/or message me on Twitter - the author did not do this.

We both spoke at the August 4 public hearing, at a similar point during the day, but Ms. Mullaney did not make an effort to engage me in conversation (I was not aware of this letter at the time or I would have engaged her myself).

I am always willing to have an honest and fact-based discussion about the merits of the Lighthouse Project (or anything else in the community), because our future is too important to leave to rumor and innuendo. You can check a post from June called "Addressing an Opponent's Concerns," in which I have a spirited but honest debate with a resident of East Meadow who opposes the Lighthouse. However, the author, and many others in Garden City and elsewhere do not seem to want this. Long Island has been hamstrung for too long by villages who believe their narrow interests override the needs of the many, and I believe it is time to reverse this thinking.

I hope you will all come to Let There Be Light(house) - lettherebelighthouse.com - and discuss this in an open, honest manner. Long Island loses if we can't get beyond demonization and identity politics to do something for the greater good. I would rather discuss issues in the context of solving them for the sake of this special home of ours, and I hope we can agree on that.

Nick Giglia

North Bellmore, NY

Take It As A Challenge

To the Editor:

I have mixed feelings about the outpouring of NIMBYism from our village in the recent Lighthouse debate. My initial response is "are you serious?" How can any logical person not want this built, especially considering what's there now. This will only raise the value of our village, I'm fairly certain. The positives are great. There are negatives, but hey...is there not traffic in the area now? Let the Lighthouse develop. Let Mineola develop. Let Hempstead develop. It only makes us better and stronger.

I very much appreciate the village defending itself, I love that the residents are huge supporters of the town. It's what makes it the best on Long Island. I would challenge all to take this as a opportunity to improve our own downtown, not worry about stunting growth elsewhere. There's much that can be done, as I've written here before.

In brief...sell the village hall, parking lot across from it, and the library. Develop offices, apartments, retail...extending 7th and creating a "new 7th" on Stewart. Move it all to St. Paul's. It can be done. The costs will largely be covered by the sale and by increased tax revenues. Sell some of the parking lots on 7th and Franklin, or have them developed. Develop the Social Services site as commercial since residential seems to be more trouble than it's worth...invite Taubman to create the "Mall at Garden City" rather than Oyster Bay or created an office HQ and draw JetBlue from Queens since they are looking to possibly move. Create a new strip on 11th, on both sides of Franklin, by developing the edge of the parking lots. Add more on-street parking along Franklin and create a landscaped median on Franklin where the turn lanes are now...to calm traffic, make the street more attractive, and make it more pedestrian friendly. Reduce Stewart to 4 lanes between Franklin and Clinton. Allow more bars and restaurants, as that is the true draw of a downtown. The list goes on.

There's so much that can be done, by the village and for the village, that should be done. While it's important to protect ourselves, not wanting any development around us makes no sense. Look at NYC...the more the merrier (retail, apartments, offices, etc.) and it seems to work. Yes, we are not the city and don't want to be but there are some sound planning ideas there that would enhance our tax base, while making the town better for residents, workers, and visitors alike. Let's see what we can do for ourselves rather than worry about what others are doing all the time. We are great, but can be greater.

Bill Sweeney

Unfair To Condos

To The Editor:

It seems to me that logic behind this local law should be re-examined. I think it imperative that the Village publish the time/cost study that led to this law for condominiums.

One building at the Wyndham has about 160 families. The average occupancy is less than two people/unit. How is it possible to collect waste from one location for 160 units that would cost more than having your trucks ride around town to collect waste from 160 individual units which probably have more than three people/unit? Where have you factored in the cost of time, trucks, gas, manpower in the two circumstances?

Why am I being singled out because I live in a condo? I should be entitled to the same services as a single family unit.

I pay taxes to the Village and expect the same consideration as anyone else.

Nicholas DeMartini

Sanitation Increase Unfair

Mayor Robert J. Rothschild and Trustees of the Village of Garden City

Re: Local Law 2009 - Special Sanitation Removal Fees for Excess Accumulation of Waste

Dear Mayor Rothschild,

I understand that the Village Trustees and yourself believe that additional fees are necessary for refuse removal from the Wyndham Condominium and other multiple dwellings in Garden City.

I beg to differ with this concept. The Wyndham has 310 residential units. A typical apartment in the Wyndham will most likely not include children as most of the apartments are occupied by either one or two people at most and therefore these apartment units generate far less rubbish than a single family home. The man hours spent, the fuel utilized and the wear and tear on the rubbish removal trucks is tremendously more for 310 separate pickups than for the pickups from The Wyndham's two buildings.

In light of the above, the real estate taxes for the multiple dwelling units should be reduced not increased.

Vincent L. Riso