Hits: 0
WPCNR The Sunday Bailey. News Commentary. By John F. Bailey. May 27, 2007 UPDATED MAY 29, 2007 10 PM: The question of “How Much Did the Council Know About the Louis Cappelli Station Square Project and When Did They Know About It? And Why they didn’t Say No?” was taken up by Councilman Dennis Power today when he released a statement to WPCNR which was first to report that Councilmembers Boykin, Roach, Malmud, Hockley and Bernstein were briefed secretly weeks before the May 10 Cappelli “surprise unveiling” of the Cappelli project.
Paul Wood, City Executive Officer, in a letter to WPCNR May 29, further amplified what the Council knew before May 10 and what they did know, writing,
John,
As I explained to you, Louis Cappelli approached the Mayor and administration between 4 to 6 months ago to discuss his very vague idea of developing the area of the TransCenter. No models, pictures, plans or other documents were reviewed. This was simply a very broad discussion about what type of development should take place, whether the train station should be replaced, etc.
Nothing more significant occurred until approximately 4 to 5 weeks ago when Louis returned with a model of the development and pictures and concept drawings. The Administration began bringing Council members shortly after that and continued briefing individual members before the plan was discussed at the public meeting on May 10.
The Billion Dollar Baby: Key Questions on the Station Square Project, according to Power are traffic ingress and egress via the Grove Street Extension on the left, green space, and the density, and alleged “walling off” of Battle Hill. WCPNR estimates approximately 13,000 persons will occupy the three office building and hotel complex during the day, in addition to the present load of commuter traffic.
Mr. Power (Shown at the Democratic City Committee Meeting April 27) in his statement says he was invited by telephone and e-mail by the Mayor’s office to briefings in the first week of May, which he reports was described as an invitation to “a tour of the 221 Main Project with Bruce Berg.”
WPCNR also recalls this being mentioned to Mr. Power verbally at one of the many special meetings held this month. At no time, Mr. Power says was he told by the Mayor’s Office that the “tour” would be a meeting to describe a new project. Power also disputes WPCNR’s description of the May 10 meeting Council reaction as one of “awe” for the project. WPCNR stands by that report.
Benerofe Recalls the Very Strange May 10 Meeting.
At the May 10 meeting which the media was led to believe was the first time the Council was being introduced to the project, James Benerofe, of suburbanstreet.com who was at that meeting, notes Councilman Arnold Bernstein said the project was “fantastic,” that Mr. Hockley was enthusiastic, suggesting City Hall be built there, and that Benjamin Boykin said it was “a great project, as long as I get my affordable housing,(currently under discussion with Mr. Cappelli)”
Jim Benerofe, White Plains Week personality was there.
Benerofe said Councilman Thomas Roach called it “a decent proposal” for the site, but worried about whether it could “handle all the people.” Mr. Roach also mused whether the land should be sold at all. Benerofe says Ms. Malmud was reserved in making any comment about how good or bad the project was, and was interested in the details of the exclusivity agreement. Benerofe agreed the comment period after the presentation lasted about 30 minutes or a little less, and the Council had little questions.
Benerofe observes of the May 10 meeting that it seemed to him, “the council seemed to know a lot more about this project than they let on, otherwise why wouldn’t they have more questions?”
Benerofe Suspicious of May 24 Tabling. Makes No Sense.
Benerofe in commenting on the decision to table the Exclusivity Agreement Thursday evening three days ago, said he found that suspicious: “If they knew about it (Station Square and the Exclusvity Request) before May 10, and they knew about it after May 10, why didn’t they say they were against it before they took up the Exclusivity Agreement Thursday? Their silence (for two months) indicates they think it (Station Square) is a good idea.”
Benerofe, puzzled observed that “If they had questions about the Exclusivity Agreement, why did the Council President allow the Mayor to put the Exclusivity Resolution on the agenda in the first place?”
WPCNR thinks this is suspicious, too, perhaps the Council was all set to approve the Exclusivity Agreement and pulled back due to the entry of three new candidates into the race for Common Council the very afternoon of the meeting, but that is pure speculation on my part. But, why table it? Why not let Mark Weingarten and Bruce Berg talk about the need for the Exclusivity Agreement, if they were not going to vote on it until June 4?
Sounds like the Councilmembers did not want to take a pro-project stance that they could be accused of by the new opposition, doesn’t it? It wouldn’t be the first time.
Power: Nature of Tour Not Made Clear to Him.
His Best Friends Don’t Tell Him.
Mr. Power charges on the other hand that it was not made clear to him by City Hall’s Karen Costable what the nature of the Bruce Berg “Tour of 221 Main” was really about.
He also does not provide an explanation why the Exclusivity Agreement was on the agenda in the first place if it was received so late (May 22 for a May 24 consideration at the Common Council Special Meeting). It is also unusual that Mr. Power’s colleagues who have admitted know of the Station Square project before May 10 — as much as 6 weeks before, did not tell him, “Hey Dennis, if you’re invited to a meeting with Bruce Berg, you should go.”
Were all told individually, unbeknownst to the other? The Common Council is getting as good as the Board of Education in keeping sensitive secrets? What else do they know that they are not telling us?
Was Mr. Power deliberately kept out of the know by his colleagues who according to Ms. Malmud and Mr. Boykin and Mr. Wood, were briefed on Station Square as early as the end of March and early April? Exact dates for the Secret Briefings were not disclosed by any party. But, hey, if they could brief five members of the council then, why not reveal it then in public?
Where’s Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?
Why the coverup?
Mr. Power’s statement puts his experience with the Station Square project in his own words:
John,
The first I learned about the project was at the May 10th Special Meeting of the White Plains Common Council and my reaction was not one of awe.
City Administration’s attempts to invite me to any presentation by the developer consisted of a few emails from Karen Costable in the Mayor’s office. The first was sent on May 2nd, when I was invited to a “tour of 221 Main Street” with Bruce Berg, maybe scheduled prior to a budget meeting or perhaps on Friday, May 11th. This was followed by a May 4th emailed invitation, again from Karen Costable, for a walk-thru meeting with Bruce Berg at 221 Main Street on May 9th at 5:15 pm.
The last email, which was sent later in the day on May 4th, invited me and members of the Cappelli organization to a meeting in the Mayor’s office at 5:45 pm on Thursday, May 10th. I knew that a Special Meeting of the Common Council was being arranged for that evening at 6:00 pm. I said that I would try to make it. At no point was there any other outreach to me via phone or other email to explain what the meeting was about. Since all that was referenced in previous emails was a “tour of 221 Main Street”, I had no way of knowing that a new proposal was in the works and I had no discussions with Council colleagues prior to the May 10th Cappelli presentation. I arrived after the 6:00 pm meeting had already started.
At the Station Square May 10th presentation there were no “overwhelming positive remarks” or “impressions of awe”. Having only a few minutes to react to a PowerPoint presentation and model mock-up, I stated publicly that the project was quite big, that it appeared to “wall off” Battle Hill, that it could not exist without the building of the Grove Street Extension because of massive traffic, that the whole area between the station and 221/Ritz Carlton and the City Center would probably fill in with other huge structures and that there would need to be provisions for open space and parks downtown.
When asked by a reporter for the White Plains Times on Friday, May 11th, I offered a number of observations which appeared in their May 18th issue in the front article titled: “Another New View?” My concerns, as noted there, revolved around building another Manhattan and the need for green spaces and parks to give people relief. I stated I am always willing to sit down and listen to proposals, but was troubled that the May 10th presentation was the first I heard of it. I reiterated my oft-stated opinion that we are always reacting to developers’ plans rather than vice versa.
We need real comprehensive planning, a very hard look and to let developers see if they fit into “our plan”. I mentioned in the article my concerns about “walling off” Battle Hill and that there are so many walls, demarcations and bifurcations going up around the city that it is hard to understand how it’s benefiting residents. And, because traffic is already a problem downtown and in surrounding neighborhoods, the Grove Street Extension is a must.
At the Common Council Special Meeting on Thursday, May 24th, I moved the motion to table the proposed Exclusivity Agreement communication and resolution and, with the full support of Council Members Malmud, Boykin and Roach, voted to table the issue and all discussion to the next regularly scheduled televised meeting of the Common Council, Monday, June 4th.
After the motion passed, the Mayor asked if the developer’s lawyer and spokesperson could speak/present since they did not know beforehand that the item was going to be tabled. I responded, “Mr. Mayor, the people of this city did not even know in advance that the item was going to be on the agenda.” The other 3 Council members [mentioned above] and I held firm that there would be no further discussion.
I think there were 4 votes to turn down the request for developer exclusivity that night but, as Rita Malmud & Ben Boykin have previously stated in discussions with CNR, we feel that legislative action should be taken only after a televised presentation at a regularly scheduled meeting and, now after the written documents [Exclusivity Agreement] have been received and made available to the public.
By the way, the proposed Exclusivity Agreement was received via mail and also via hand-delivery to Council Members Malmud, Boykin, Roach and me on Tuesday, May 22nd and with “Deliver by Hand” noted on the May 18th cover letter from Corporation Counsel Ed Dunphy.
