WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER 3,826,065 VISITS IN ONE YEAR—73,578 VISITS A WEEK BY 1,111,506 VISITORS

Hits: 0

WPCNR Afternoon Tribune. By John F. Bailey. August 14, 2002: The White Plains Labor Coalition, representing the police, firefighters, teachers and the CSEA, endorsed Adam Bradley Wednesday as their choice for Assemblyperson in the 89th District.

WHITE PLAINS LABOR LINES UP FOR BRADLEY: On the steps of the Public Safety Building, the White Plains Labor Coalition stood behind Adam Bradley in his race against Naomi Matusow. L to R, Jim Carrier, of the WPPBA, Duncan McRae, head of the WPLC, Mr. Bradley, and Bob Bogart of the retired firefighters.
Photo by WPCNR

Citing incumbent Assemblyperson Naomi Matusow’s refusal to support the White Plains sales tax, Duncan MacRae, head of the Coalition, Jim Carrier of the White Plains PBA, and Bob Bogart of the retired firefighters, spoke on Bradley’s behalf. MacRae said the Coalition was contemplating reaching out to other labor groups in other towns in the 89th district to acquire their support for Mr. Bradley.

McRae said this was the first time the White Plains Labor Coalition had ever endorsed a candidate in the primary. He said, “It is egregious to us that Naomi Matusow won’t support our sales tax.”

Jim Carrier, President of the White Plains Police Benevolent Association, said that without the ½% sales tax, the city police and fire force would be exposed to the possibility of layoffs, and a property tax increase: “Our choice (Adam Bradley) is easy and we support him.”

Bob Bogart, speaking on behalf of the retired firefighters, said, “We interviewed Naomi Matusow three times and each time she vehemently refused to even consider the question of supporting the sales tax. She said she felt it would hurt her with the Republican constituency in her district. Now there is no Republican running against her. What’s her excuse now?”

Mr. Bradley said, “The city workforce support as a whole, I really appreciate the White Plains Labor Coalition endorsement in the Democratic Primary (September 10). In the past White Plains has been blessed with excellent representation. (Former Assemblyperson) Audrey Hochberg sponsored the original ½% sales tax. White Plains sales tax is 7-3/4% less than Yonkers, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle. It is a small price when you realize that White Plains, a city of 50,000 residents, we have to provide services for 250,000 people Monday through Friday. It is unfair to require us to accept a 30% property tax increase, or lay off police and firemen, (if that ½% is not supported).

Bradley: Matusow “irresponsible.”

He continued to say, “It is absolutely irresponsible of a state legislator to neglect obvious needs of their communities.”

Bradley added that the county faced a $102-109 Million budget gap, and possibly a 29% hike in the county property tax to close the gap. “We need to protect the property owner in this county.” He said he would listen and work “to serve the needs of each community” in the 89th district.

Up to 100 police and firefighters could be laid off.

Mr. MacRae added at the cose of the news conference that up to 100 police and firefighter might be trimmed from the two departments in White Plains if the city did not raise the property tax to make up for the ½% shortfall.

Matusow Changes Indian Point Position.

Commenting after the news conference on Ms. Matusow’s upcoming Indian Point Forum on Risks, August 21, Adam Bradley pointed out that Mrs. Matusow, who previously had said she favored decommissioning Indian Point if alternative energy sources could replace the power lost from closing the point, and this week called for closing Indian Point “immediately”, is echoing his personal political position.

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” Bradley said, referring to Matusow’s strengthening her Indian Point closure stance. He took the opportunity to criticize her for not knowing that White Plains High School was scheduled to be a decontamination station in the event a radiation leak occurred and persons had to be bussed out of the Indian Point area.

Hits: 0

WPCNR News Reel. From New York League of Conservation Voter. August 13, 2002:The New York League of Conservation Voters, a statewide environmental group, announced today its early endorsement of N.Y.S. Assemblymember Naomi C. Matusow (D) for the 89th Assembly District in Westchester County.
“Naomi Matusow is clearly an environmental leader, and the New York League of Conservation Voters enthusiastically supports her re-election,” said Marcia Bystryn, Executive Director of the NYLCV. “The League believes that Matusow will continue an excellent voting record that reflects her strong commitment to environmental issues.”

“I am honored and delighted to receive once again the endorsement of the New York League of Conservation Voters. It is gratifying that my commitment to environmental protection, preservation of open space, improvement of air and water quality and opposition to un-checked urban sprawl has been acknowledged. Every citizen of the 89th A.D., can rely on me for continued leadership on these crucial issues,” said Assemblymember Matusow.

Matusow was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1992. In 1998, Matusow guided a bill that established the Clean Drinking Water Revolving Fund and negotiated the Pesticide Reporting bill through the N.Y.S. Legislature. In 2000, Matusow authored a law requiring the Department of Environmental Conservation to adopt stringent air emission standards for personal watercraft.

Matusow has played a principal role in the N.Y.S. Assembly in sponsoring pro-environmental legislation. On recycling, Matusow introduced a bill to expand the definition of the term “beverage” in the state bottle bill to include non-carbonated drinks. Matusow also sponsored a bill that would make considering means of alternative energy mandatory for energy performance contracts.

Hits: 0

WPCNR Evening City Star Reporter. By John F. Bailey. August 12, 2002: The city filed suit Monday with the Public Employment Relations Board in Albany, charging the local Civil Services Employee Association with unfair labor practices for failing to negotiate in good faith.

The city, according to George Gretsas, the Mayor’s executive Officer, is seeking for the Public Employment Relations Board to order the union to the negotiating table.

Gretsas said the suit filed Monday documents stating that the city had asked the union local 1000, headed by Joseph Roche, engineer in the Building Department for the City of White Plains, to begin negotiations 19 times, and each time the union failed to set a date to begin negotiations.

On June 30, 2002, the current contract with the CSEA expired. Presently, Gretsas said, non-CSEA employees are receiving raises, while CSEA union-members, as a result of union failure to come to the bargaining table, are continuing at the rate of pay of the expired contract.

Joseph Roche, head of the local CSEA union, has been asked to comment to WPCNR, but as of yet has not contacted WPCNR with a comment or a reason for the delay in negotiations.

On July 23, in response to the last city letter of July 17, the CSEA wrote saying it was prepared to begin negotiations August 6. However, when the city wrote agreeing to that day, the union public relations representative, identified as a Mr. Sparber in the complaint, wrote they could not negotiate on the sixth due to another commitment.

Gretsas said that pay increase was not the issue here because pattern bargaining is followed in the case of pay issues. Gretsas also said that he had no idea what issues the union was prepared to discuss because they have not negotiated in the six months leading up to the expiration of the contract.

Asks Board to Force CSEA to Post Notice Admitting it Failed to Negotate.

The city’s suit, addressed to Monte Klein, Director of Public Employment and Practices and Representation, asks the Board to find the CSEA to have engaged in an improper practice; order the CSEA to cease and desist from such conduct now and in the future; order the CSEA to negotiate in good faith; and direct the CSEA to post a notice in areas “conspicuous to all unit members that it is and has been engaging in unlawful activities and that it will cease from such activities now and in the future.” Gretsas had no opinion as to what “further relief” (asked for in the suit) consisted of.

Common Council has “No reaction.”

Asked if the Common Council endorsed the suit, Mr. Gretsas said the Common Council, when informed of the city’s intention to file the suit, had “no reaction,” and did not tell the city not to file the action.

Hits: 0

WPCNR County Clarion Reporter. From Westchester County Department of Communications. August 9, 2002. :Poetry readings, musical selections and a moment of silence will be part of the program September 11 when Westchester County and Project Liberty hold a community gathering in downtown White Plains in honor of the 108 county residents lost in the World Trade Center attack.

The program will be held on Martine Avenue in front of the County Office Building starting at 8:30 a.m, and is expected to last approximately one hour.

“We wanted Westchester residents to have a place where they could come together as a community to commemorate Sept. 11 and remember those we lost,’’ said County Executive Andy Spano. “This is very much in keeping with the state-wide plans announced by the governor, only it will be closer to home and focus on Westchester. We are offering a simple and, what we hope will be, a moving event to mark a solemn day in our history. We ask Westchester residents to join us for this important commemoration.’’

The City of White Plains will close off Martine Avenue between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Court Street starting several hours before to accommodate the event.

“We thank White Plains and Mayor Joseph Delfino for hosting this event and Project Liberty for co-sponoring it with Westchester County,” City of White Plains Mayor Joseph M. Delfino said as the county seat and the central point in Westchester, White Plains was the logical and most appropriate place to hold the event.

“The City of White Plains is very proud and honored to host this solemn event marking the one-year anniversary of the senseless tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001,’’ said Delfino. “It is through these acts of community fellowship that Americans have renewed their faith and allegiance to the principles that our country stands for.’’

Project Liberty, a non-profit organization created with federal funds to offer counseling and other services to help residents rebuild their lives after 9/11, helped to organize and fund the event as a way to promote healing.

“Westchester County lost 108 of its citizens on September 11th, 2001. They were – spouses, parents, sons, daughters, siblings, friends, neighbors and part of our future. Each one is dearly missed,’’ said Jackie Connors, program director for Project Liberty, Westchester. “This ceremony is an opportunity for the Westchester Community to honor them. It also allows us to renew our commitments to ourselves, families, friends, community and our way of life.”

The program will include performances by vocal group The Westchester Chordsmen, a presentation by the Junior Girl Scout Troop 2261 of Irvington and the reading of a poem written and selected for the event by U.S. Poet Laureate Billy Collins, a Westchester resident. As in New York City and elsewhere around the state and nation, a moment of silence will be observed at 8:46 a.m., the time when the first plane hit the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Spano will speak about Westchester’s plans for a memorial to those lost on September 11 and will introduce members of a committee formed to help plan Westchester’s “Freedom Plaza.”

Also speaking will be Lois Bronz, chair of the Westchester County Board of Legislators, and Mayor Delfino. Master of Ceremonies will be former WNBC journalist Tony Aiello.

Hits: 0

WPCNR News Reel. From Council President Benjamin Boykin. August 8, 2003:For those who have not seen or heard Council President Benjamin Boykin’s speech given prior to the historic Common Council approval of the New York Presbyterian Hospital biomedical project, WPCNR presents the text of his speech given at 2:10 AM Tuesday morning, reproduced with the permission of the Councilman. His comments make clear his reasoning for casting the decisive vote approving the project.

Common Council President Benjamin Boykin
Photo by WPCNR

Thank you Mr. Mayor and my Council colleagues.

Good evening again to my fellow residents. Tonight, this Council will vote on the application from NYPH. I want to thank the City Staff for the hundreds of hours and the many feet of paper that has been generated for this application. To our outside Counsel, Mr. Gerard and Mr. Johnson, your advice has been exceptional and very thoughtful. To the public, your letters, emails, personal discussions, and presentations before the Council have been extremely valuable in my deliberations.

For nearly two decades, various proposals have come from the hospital to develop a portion of its property. None of those proposals have resulted in any development at the White Plains site. The most recent Marriott Facility proposal approved by the Common Council, to be built within the Medical Oval, was withdrawn by the hospital earlier this year due to adverse market conditions and the lack of funding for these facilities.

The application before us tonight is for an amendment to the existing special permit and approval of a site plan for the construction of 384,000 square foot hospital building with a separate parking structure for more than 986 cars. Approximately 50,000 square feet of the building would be dedicated to the Center of Advanced Proton Therapeutics (CAPT) or Proton Beam Facility. This facility and lab space would be for the treatment of certain cancers.

The discussion over this project has sparked much passion from various individuals and organizations. The range of discussion has gone from absolute no development on this property to those who say that this is private property and the applicant has the right to develop it. It has been, and it will continue to be, my attempt to find some middle ground where everyone has given something up, but in return, everyone benefits because we have more than we started with. We have heard many arguments for this proposal and many arguments against this proposal. Each person has articulated his or her position quite well.

I think that we all agree that medical research is a good thing. It saves lives and adds to our quality of life. The delivery of patient care is rapidly changing and will continue to evolve. Medical institutions must also change or they will become like the dinosaur –extinct. However, the issue for this community, from a public policy standpoint is whether this is the right project in the right place for White Plains.

Some individuals have advocated that we just so no – reject the project and move on. Do not allow any development on this property. The hospital, under its current R1 – 12.5 zoning, can build about 490 single-family houses on their property. They could, in theory, start this development tomorrow. The status quo is therefore residential development.

As I have read the information, listened to the discussion, and spoken with individuals in our community, I have tried to focus on the key issues and concerns regarding this project.

I believe that the hospital has a right to do some modest development on its property. However, the right of private property ownership carries with it the public responsibility to be considerate of your neighbor and sensitive to the environment. In the environmental process for this application, the Council has built a public record that will prevent massive development of this property. Therefore, most of the conceptual master plan information presented early in this process will never happen. We must make sure through legislation and the forming of new relationships with the hospital, that community concerns are considered and addressed for this property.

The key issues, as I see them, for this application are Project Location, Traffic and Use. Let me spend some time on each of these issues.

PROJECT LOCATION

The hospital, in its initial application, asked to build this project on Bryant Avenue, next to Bryant Gardens. It would have been an obtrusive invasion of this beautiful residential neighborhood. Every member of this Council publicly stated that this project could not go on Bryant Avenue. After much discussion, the hospital agreed to move the project to Site 8 or a combination of Site 8 and 5. Site 8 is several hundred feet behind Bloomingdale’s Department Store and set back several hundred feet from Bryant Avenue. Site 5, located inside the Medical Oval, was the proposed location of the Marriott Facility. The Site Plan approval before us tonight is for location the facility on Site 8.

At the insistence of several Council members, we reviewed each potential location inside the Medical Oval in depth to see if the proposed project could be located there. With the historical preservation status, the placement of the proposed facility completely within the Medical Oval was not practicable.

The new location cannot be seen Bloomingdale Road and will have very limited visibility from Bryant Avenue in the winter months. This location protects the residential property values and eliminates any “medical building creep.” Site 8 also preserves the open space buffer along Bryant Avenue and minimizes the impact on environmentally sensitive areas.

TRAFFIC

With any new proposed development, traffic becomes a major concern. With the project on Bryant Avenue, traffic on Bryant Avenue could not be mitigated. The proposed development is now on Site 8, which is behind Bloomingdale’s Department Store and several hundred feet from Bryant Avenue. However, relocation of the facility was not enough to mitigate most of the traffic impact on Bryant Avenue. Therefore, I demanded that the Bryant Avenue entrance closed and only available for emergency use. The Environmental Findings Statement as well as the Site Plan that we will vote on this evening will close the Bryant Avenue entrance except for emergency use. With the elimination of most of the traffic impact on Bryant Avenue, we are continuing to protect our residential neighborhoods.

USE

A very difficult aspect of this project has been use. The applicant is seeking approval for two uses – Proton Bean for the treatment of certain cancers and medical research. We have employed experts to examine the Proton Bean facilities and based upon their analyses, I have concluded that they are safe and that this is an appropriate hospital related use.

Medical research is a permitted use under the Special Permit if it is subordinate or subsidiary to the principal hospital functions. That is, medical research must be ancillary to the principal hospital use. While there is no definition of ancillary use, this council has wrestled with this issue and decided that the proposed medical use is ancillary. In addition, any medical research done at the White Plains Campus of NYPH must be connected with the hospital activities at this location. There will not be any labs for the production of items for distribution. Commercial activity on this site is strictly prohibited.

There are other aspects of use that has given me great pause. I have asked about relationships that the hospital may enter into for profit. In order to address this issue, we have placed language in the Environmental Findings Statement to allow the Assessor to collect the appropriate information to make the tax status determination. I have been assured by City Staff that if for profit activities occur at the hospital, appropriate actions will be taken to put these functions on the tax rolls of the City of White Plains. We cannot and we will not allow entities to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers of this city.

This project will require additional electrical power and water. Con Edison, in cooperation with our Public Works Department, has stated that they can handle the added electrical burden with the current or reconstructed substations. Hospitals use a lot of water and with the Proton Bean and the Medical Research facility; the water usage for this city will increase. When the city reaches a certain level of water usage, raw water costs increase. The Council, unrelated to this project, will probably adjust water rates for heavy wpcnr_users in the coming months. This project will not increase water rates for our residential water wpcnr_users.

CONCLUSION

I have tried to listen, reflect and arrive at a decision that I feel addresses many competing interests while protecting our city from a successful legal challenge of our actions. It has not been easy. This is a very complex proposal and an emotional issue for many of our residents. As an elected official, I cannot reject a proposal simply because I may not like it. I must, through due process and thoughtful deliberation, arrive at a decision that is supported by fact and that is good public policy.

I am concerned that if we deny this application, the city may lose control of our special permit and zoning rights and the courts will determine the fate of this project. This would be the worse of all situations for the residents of White Plains.

I believe the relocation of the project to Site 8, the closing of the Bryant Avenue Entrance and imposing detail conditions for hospital related uses, the impact on our neighborhoods and the City of White Plains have been mitigated.

Therefore, I will vote to approve the Environmental Findings Statement and the Site Plan Approval for the applicant.

It is time for a new beginning with the hospital. I ask the hospital to immediately meet with us to address pressing community concerns. I look forward to working with the hospital to provide the residents of White Plains with public access to the beautiful property for passive as well as leisure and active recreational uses.

Thank you.