Resolve Dispute Now

To the Editor:

For heaven’s sake, will some adults step forward, take charge, and resolve the Nassau Blvd/Stratford Ave intersection dispute before a child is hit by a speeding car and catapulted over the Merillon Ave station, or crushed beyond recognition by a 5-ton truck. Based on reports, the district is responsible for faulty bus route calculation and prior route history. The district should provide busing immediately.

We are fed up reading that parents - taxpayers all - are compelled to beg school officials for a solution and being treated with disrespect. Parents want results, not talk. District officials’ intransigence and disdainful treatment of affected parents is uncivil and obnoxious. It’s also an embarrassment to all other residents of Utopia. If the district doesn’t accept responsibility and do the right thing, the district should be sued. I daresay a judge would be hard pressed to deny an injunction where young children are at risk because of the district’s arbitrary CSZ calculation. This is a teaching moment, but it’s the hard way for district officials to learn that the determination to make a safety zone determination is not solely within their province, as they have reportedly claimed.

When this dispute is resolved, the superintendent and BOE can devote their prodigious brainpower to other important matters - well, like obtaining NYSED recognition of the high school as “High Performing” - with the same doggedness they oppose parents’ good faith attempts to resolve the intersection dispute. Remember when the high school was not listed by the NYSED as “High-Performing” for 2006-2007? A district ‘Public Relations Officer’ surfaced to announce, seriously, the omission was due to a ‘technicality’. The high school is not listed as “High-Performing” for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 either. More technicalities? (You can look it up:www.emsc.nysed.gov.; note other numerous Nassau high schools identified as “High Performing”.) The annual omission is more than just a ‘technicality’; it’s become a workout situation. Is it now district policy to ignore the safety of our children as well as the high school education of our teenagers? Residents want results. Not talk.

J J Dolan

Unsightly Boxes

To the Editor:

My family and I have been residents of the Garden City Estates since 1998 and have always felt fortunate to live in such a remarkable community. We have never taken for granted the safe and beautiful neighborhood in which we live. Today I write to you because I am gravely concerned about the situation being presented to this Village by a company called Next G.

Next G is a facilities-based provider and reseller of telephone service, without the ability to provide local exchange service. What this means to me is that Next G has asked the Village of Garden City for a franchise agreement so that they can come into our community and place large unsightly boxes on top of poles that will be at least 28 feet tall and they plan to do this right in front of residential homes. Once these boxes are in place, they will, as best I can tell, turn around and lease/sell the right to use these boxes to carriers of wireless service (for example Metro PCS).

Obviously, the Village will receive some compensation for this. I have no idea how much, but I would guess that the windfall here will go to Next G who will be the one collecting revenue from an undetermined number of carriers for an undetermined amount of time. Meanwhile, it will be the residents of Garden City who are left with diminished property values and a reduction in the quality of life that we now enjoy. If you would like a better idea of what this will all look like, you need look no further than North Merrick where this situation was inflicted upon the residents there. There is currently a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, between the Merrick Gables Association and Next G. I am sure that none of us wish this to be where we end up on this.

Although the Village has known about this for a very long time, I only learned of this situation in an article written in the October 23, 2009 issue of the Garden City News. I don’t know what the Villages plan was for getting the residents input on this, but I can say that I have not encountered one neighbor (and I have spoken to many) who approves of this.

Please let your ideas on this be known to our Mayor and Trustees. Please let them know that no amount of money will be enough to compensate us for the substantial loss of market value to our homes and the reduction to our quality of life.

Veronica Mallozzi

Say No To Towers

To the Editor:

I have heard from a community advocate that the village is in the process of negotiating with NextG to potentially place cell antennas in our residential neighborhoods near homes and schools. The 15 proposed locations all directly effect residents and are in immediate proximity to homes and/or schools.

The following is a letter we emailed the mayor this past week:

As residents and homeowners we are firmly against placing ANY cell antennas and/or towers in ANY residential areas within Garden City. We do not want an antenna and/or tower anywhere near our property. Our family has concerns regarding these antennas and/or towers on multiple levels. We do not believe the village should have any right to install such antennas and/or towers, especially in residential areas, without the consent or vote of a majority of its residents. Additionally, any specific installation of any one given tower in a residential area should also be subject to the approval of all surrounding homeowners. I personally do not think anyone would vote for an antenna and/or tower placed near or next to their home. Would you like a tower placed immediately outside your residence??? Garden City is a beautiful community and once you begin to allow commercial antennas/towers in residential neighborhoods we begin the process of slowly taking away from the community feel that makes Garden City so desirable.

Desirability aside, the debate as to potential health risks is a critical component. Why should any resident be subject to antennas and /or towers being erected next to their residence that could potentially pose a health risk? What right does the village have to place potential hazards near our homes without our consent? Furthermore, these factors would negatively impact property values by or near any residence that has a tower placed anywhere in close proximity to it. Will the village reduce my village taxes because my property has been negatively effected? Will the village write Nassau County on my behalf to insure my school taxes are also lowered because Garden City has erected a tower near my house that now makes make property less desirable? And even more importantly, will the village pay my medical bill if a family member becomes ill 10 years from now because we live next to a NextG antenna???

Along that line, while I recognize the need for revenue, potential lawsuits from angered residents (such as what I understand is playing out in Merrick currently) could cost the village more then any revenues that are recognized. Not to mention the staggering negative economic effect that could potentially occur if in fact someone developed a medical issue from the NextG antenna and successfully sued the village on these grounds that they were installed without the consent of residents. Even if your auditors believe the economic outcome to the village may end up cash positive to the village it still is simply the not the right thing to do. There are other alternatives that exist from just utilizing commercial areas, to simply saying NO to any towers. Yes we are in difficult financial times but placing antennas and /or towers in residential areas is simply NOT THE ANSWER.

If you somehow still feel NextG antennas and /or towers are the correct answer to our financial woes, I invite you to personally poll the residents near each of the proposed locations and I simply ask that you govern by the wishes of the residents you serve.

Scott & Michelle Kiley

Threat To Character

To the Editor:

Nine years ago, my husband and I were drawn to Garden City by its charm and its quaint feel. Garden City offered a quality of life that cannot be found in other Long Island communities. We loved the character of its homes, and the character of its residents, people who were known to cherish their community and whose family values reflected our own. We wanted our three children to be raised in a community just like this. We therefore purchased our home on Euston Road and have been proud to become members of this community. We feel very fortunate to have a home in this wonderful community. We work very hard to maintain our home so that we can continue to live here and provide the best for our children.

The plan by NextG Networks to install their Distributed Antenna System on our residential blocks poses a significant threat to the quaint character that draws people to our Village and will result in a significant depreciation in our property values. I urge our Mayor Rothschild and the Board of Trustees to deny NextG Networks’ application.

NextG proposed to install their antennas within yards of our homes, schools and parks. The proposed antennas, however, would not be in harmony with the surrounding structures. Among beautiful Tudors and charming colonials will be an incongruous commercial antenna, towering high into the air. These antennas are more in character with office buildings and high-rises than two story homes. Indeed, the Village recognizes that large structures in a residential setting are unsightly and detrimental to our community’s character.

While adversely impacting the character of our neighborhoods, the proposed antennas will also have a significantly negative impact on our property values. That these antennas are very controversial cannot be disputed. Indeed, various communities have denied similar proposals and residents of Merrick have filed suit to have them removed from their neighborhood. The presence of such controversial structures will keep people from purchasing our homes.

While I understand that the Board may not consider the potential health effects of the antennas as an independent basis for denying NextG’s application, that there is a question about the long-term health effects is undeniable. Scientific evidence is, at best, inconclusive. The best guidance available today is that we do not know whether there are long-term health effects caused by the electromagnetic radiation emanating from antennas. This uncertainty, coupled with the negative effects that the commercial, outsized antennas will have on the character of the neighborhood, will make our properties much less attractive to potential purchasers, thereby depreciating the value of our homes. Everything else being equal, any homebuyer would choose a block with quaint streetlamps over a block with a commercial antenna towering over the homes. Any responsible parent, in the face of health uncertainty, will choose not to purchase a home that is close to a potential health hazard. Indeed, even though antennas may not be on every block, the current proposal of placing antennas next to our schools will have a Village-wide impact on values. Parents realizing that our children are in close proximity to the antennas throughout the school day may choose to avoid our community entirely, depressing our home prices Village-wide. How can we, as residents of this great community, allow this to happen?

NextG has proposed placing one of these antennas within 200 feet of my front door. If NextG is allowed to proceed, they will place a commercial antenna on my corner, destroying the look and feel of my block. Like any parent, like any homeowner, the prospect of having an antenna so close to my home is frightening, and my family may be forced to leave the home that my husband and I have worked so hard to purchase and maintain.

You must not allow this to happen. I urge the Board to deny NextG’s application.

Lisa Galioto

Find Better Solution

To the Editor:

I strongly oppose NextG placing antennas and using our private village property for commercial purposes. They are a technology company and as such should be able to find a better solution than going into communities where families reside and using it for their commercial interests. Why not let a billboard company come in and use our lamp posts for advertising. You wouldn’t do that either.

I am sure all of you are on the right side of this argument.

Robert Reid

Composition

Of Board

To the Editor:

It is ironic that the EPOA and WPOA are actively seeking candidates for the Village Trustee positions and, at the same time, residents have been receiving the Village of Garden City Annual Report. On page 5 of the report is a picture of the Board of Trustees. The board is 100% male (8 members) while the population of Garden City (based on recent Census Bureau data) is 52.1% women.

James Bauer

Free Parking

At Walkway

To The Editor:

In the Nov. 20 edition of the Garden City News in a story about the Walkway Over the Hudson it talks about parking spots available for $5. This is incorrect. At the Highland entrance there are approximately 500 free parking spaces. The easiest way to get to get to the Walkway by car is from New York City to the New York State Thruway exit at New Paltz. It is approximately seven miles from the New Paltz exit on Routes 299 and 9-W to the Walkway Over the Hudson.

Craig McKinney

Thanks For

Coverage

To the Editor:

Thank you for the great space you gave our “Sponsor A Family” article this past Friday. I want you to know that I have already received 10 phone calls from people willing to sponsor a family, after they saw our appeal in the GC News. We had the same wonderful response to the articles placed for Thanksgiving dinners. Your help in reaching the community is essential to our cause - thank you so much!

Lita Carballeira

St. Joseph’s Sponsor a

Family Program

Don’t Destroy GC’s DNA

To the Editor:

Garden City needs to look no further than its northern Franklin Avenue border to see an example of a magnificent restoration of a building which was unused for many years and after decades of neglect fell into a terrible state of decay. The example is the Nassau County Theodore Roosevelt Executive and Legislative Building. The building was opened in 1902 and served as the County Seat until before World War II when it fell into disrepair. The restored building was opened in 2003.

This restoration project and the amount of time that the county building remained dormant should be an example to the residents of Garden City who are faced with a premature decision to raze St. Paul’s after owning the structure for 16 years. Let St. Paul’s sit, continue to let ideas for its use gestate and over time a need and use will arise which restores the building to its prior grandeur. St. Paul’s is GC’s DNA; don’t destroy it.

St. Paul’s testifies to the character of the community which built it. The question now is how the present residents will measure up as the community which has the responsibility for deciding whether or not to tear down the structure. Is short term gain and reducing the costs, about $150,000 per year to maintain the structure, going to supercede the obvious community affection for the structure and the residents obligations as citizens to protect an enduring architectural landmark?

The decision to no longer heat the building, effective this month, is a willful attempt to destroy, in large measure, the built environment which defines the character of Garden City community. It is government sponsored vandalism.

James M. Kenny