Council Hears Latest From Cappelli, Ginsburg, Community Development Cuts

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. MARCH 23, 2005: The Common Council convenes for its monthly worksession this evening at 6 P.M. at City Hall to discuss the Cappelli Hotel-Condoplex “Renaissance Square,” the Cappelli senior housing apartments at 240 Main Street, Martin Ginsburg’s scaled-back plans for The Pinnacle next door, and Community Development Program recommendations. Also on tap are water main replacements on Mamroneck Avenue and Martine Avenues, and additional parking on 2 Overlook Drive at 101 Mamaroneck Avenue.

Posted in Uncategorized

Graessle Pleads with MCPRC at Highlands for more Input on Core Area

Hits: 0

WPCNR HIGHLANDS PATROL. March 22, 2005: Retired Commissioner of Planning for the City of White Plains, Michael Graessle, addressed the Mayor’s Comprehensive Planning Review Committee Tuesday evening at the Highlands Middle School. Here is the text of his remarks:


MIKE GRAESSLE — Speaking when he and the Citizens Plan Committee first raised the issue of rexamining the Comprehensive Plan, May 26, 2004 at Our Lady of Sorrows. Photo, WPCNR News Archive.


The 1997 Comprehensive Plan was the result of a process that featured widespread public participation.  The current process for reviewing and updating the Plan should also include – indeed it should even welcome – the same level of widespread public participation

Your meeting of February 9, 2005 was billed as a public hearing on the Core Area Neighborhood.  Although called a “public hearing,” it is not clear what publications the public hearing was announced in, or what efforts were made to encourage public participation.  Other than representatives from the White Plains BID and the Citizens Plan Committee, only a few additional members of the public actually attended the session and, apparently, none of them live in the Core Area Neighborhood.

I imagine that this lack of citizen participation concerns you as much as it does members of our Committee. The most significant amount of development is occurring in the City’s Core Area, and there is considerable anxiety about such issues as height, lack of open space, density, and traffic.  Yet, we are troubled that most residents of the downtown area were never informed about your meeting and, consequently, that concerned residents were not present to share their views with you.

Clearly, you cannot regard the small number of citizens who attended the February 9 meeting as representative of the community’s interest in the Core area. We checked with a limited number of residents in the downtown area and confirmed our impression that they had no foreknowledge of the meeting.  For example, it was reported that the leadership of a cooperative on Martine Avenue was unaware of your meeting although they have been very concerned about the downtown development issues because of their proximity to City Center and other major construction in the vicinity. Nor does it seem that residents of Martine Avenue, Mitchell
Place or any of the other residential buildings in the Core Area Neighborhood were aware of your meeting. Since much of the future of our City is linked to the success of the Core Area, we don’t see how you can move ahead to the consideration of other issues until you address the Core Area adequately.

We gather that your Committee is now picking up on suggestions to undertake better communications regarding the date, time and place for your future meetings, as well as the topics to be covered. Please let all of us know soon–here– now– how you intend to do it.

The absence of citizens at the meeting may also be attributed to the fact that your Committee members themselves seemed unclear about the direction that the committee ought to take.  At your initial meeting, for example, Lewis Trippett recommended creation of subcommittees similar to those involved in developing the 1997 Plan. Eli Schoenberger suggested creating a task force to address each of the four areas recommended by the Planning Department.  Bob Goldstein questioned meeting as a full committee, rather than meeting as subgroups.  And Ron
Jackson suggested that the meetings be held in different locations across the city in order to facilitate citizen participation. In addition, Ann Edwards requested that there be a meeting on each of the four areas prior to each public hearing, and Guy D’Antona recommended that, prior to any public hearings, another organizational meeting of
the committee be held. Mr. Trippett further suggested that written reports from neighborhood associations be reviewed prior to public  hearings. Even the co-chair, John Martin, commented that he thought
another organizational meeting would be useful prior to the public hearings.

Given the contrary recommendations from a variety of your own committee members, it shouldn’t be surprising to you that we, along with others, were amazed to see your Committee proceed immediately with the schedule for the four public hearings, beginning on March 1.  For us, such actions gave rise two critical questions:  Who is influencing the decisions of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee?  Will your Committee be able to work independently and come to your own conclusions and recommendations, or will you be responsive to pressures from other sources?

We have said it before and we’ll say it again:  your Committee needs to be objective, open and reasoned in its deliberations; and your manner of operation must be seen as independent and credible.  An independent
Comprehensive Plan Review Committee is essential to assure that the comments and suggestions of the diverse population of the City of White Plains are heard and carefully considered. Now that you’ve had your
second organizational meeting last week, nearly half-way through the originally reported three month timetable, we believe that it would be extremely useful, essential really for your Committee, to explain to the public how, despite the apparent inclinations of many of your own members, you reached your decisions about the way you are proceeding – in particular, why there have been no task forces or subcommittees established, and why the efforts to invite true public participation have been so limited.


Mike Graessle

Posted in Uncategorized

JPI’s The Jefferson will Sell as Condominiums from $320G to $650G

Hits: 0

WPCNR Mamaroneck Avenue Ambler. By John F. Bailey. March 22, 2005: JPI, builders of The Jefferson on Mamaroneck Avenue will market their 8-story panoramic residential complex on the avenue as condominiums.


WPCNR has confirmed this from informed sources with knowledge of the developer’s plans.  The Dallas development firm will be filing an Offering Plan with  the Attorney General’s Office to market their 281 units of apartments and town houses as condominiums. The developer plans to market 1 bedroom units beginning at $320,000 up to $420,000 at this time, and 2 bedroom units with their wraparound bay windows at the higher levels from $450,000 to $650,000.


The developer  announced these plans in detail at a recent meeting of the Highlands Neighborhood Association at JPI’s White Plains offices. In addition sources who heard the presentation told WPCNR the developer plans to sell 125 parking spaces of the 460 in their underground garage for $20,000 to $30,000 each to owners who wish more than their 1-allotted free parking space. JPI plans two 2,000 square foot blocks of retail space, one of which will contain a restaurant, described as “white table cloth” in quality. However they are only reserving 25 parking spaces for each retail wing. JPI’s solution is for retail and restaurant traffic to park on the street. First occupancy is hope for , by the fall.


On the matter of their 6% allotment to affordable housing, JPI told the Highlands residents who attended the briefing that they expected to pay a fee rather than market “affordable units” at below market rates.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

221 Main Street Groundbreaking Cancelled for Wednesday

Hits: 0

WPCNR MAIN STREET TICKER. March 22, 2005: Tomorrow’s scheduled groundbreaking for the 221 Main Street Cappelli Hotel project has been cancelled. A spokesman for Cappelli Enterprises told the CitizeNetReporter the reason was for a delay in the issuance of the demolition permit and that Mr. Cappelli could not attend tomorrow. The spokesman said the Bar Building Annex was “gutted” on the interior and the exterior walls will be coming down shortly.

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Attend Hearing on School Budget. P.R. Firm Hired. No St. Pat’s Party Statement

Hits: 0

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. Special to the CitizeNetReporter. March 22, 2004 EDITED March 23, 2005: At the Board of Education meeting Monday evening, the first public hearing on the proposed 2005-2006 School Budget of $154.8 Million was held, and just two citizens appeared. Neither of those citizens made any comments, according to a school district official who attended the meeting.


 


The Board of Education is scheduled to adopt the budget next Monday evening, March 28. City Hall provided no written projections of future certriorari refunds and expected revenues from new development (PILOTS) were provided to the district as requested by the Assistant Superintendent for Business one month ago.


 


No written information on major certriorari obligations expected or the revenues anticipated in the next two to five years  from Payments In Lieu of Taxes from the City Center, 221 Main Street, The Jefferson, the City Center North Tower and Trump Tower was received by the School District Business Office as requested one month ago. No representative from the city attended to pinch-hit  for Eyde McCarthy, the City Assessor, who was scheduled to provide this information Monday night, but could not attend for health matters.


 


A call to the Mayor’s office to ascertain why a detailed written report outlining expected certriorari and PILOT and revenue projections going out up to five years or more  has not been prepared by the city, or why Budget Direct Ann Reasoner, or Commissioner of Finance Gina Cuneo-Harwood could not address the School Board and the School Business Office in Ms. McCarthy’s place has not been responded to as of this hour. The School District Business Office requested such a projection for their own budget planning over the next five years a month ago.


 


Public Relations Team on Board.


 


Syntax Communications was officially hired by the School District to prepare district publications and informational material at a cost of $40,000, about $20,000 of which would be remimbursed by BOCES.


 


According to Michele Schoenfeld, Clerk to the Board of Education, Syntax will be publishing the next Board of Education newsletter in April, the budget information briefings in May, and will be conducting focus groups to develop and eventually prepare profiles and informational materials and features on the uniqueness of the School District.


 


No Statement on High School Drinking Party last Wednesday.


 


No statement was offered by the Superintendent of Schools Timothy Connors on the White Plains High School morning teenage drinking party involving 20 – 25 students just off-campus of the high school that was broken up by White Plains Police last Wednesday.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Hockley Decision: Analysis

Hits: 0

WPCNR MR. AND MS. AND MRS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE.  March 21, 2005, UPDATED MARCH 22, 2005, 4:30 P.M. E.S.T.:  Glen Hockly told The CitizeNetReporter today his attorneys have not arrived at a recommendation as to whether they believe he should begin the deposition of affidavit signes. Hockley said they are evaluating past cases and simply have not reached a conclusion. Mr. Hockley is pondering whether to proceed and conduct legal depositions on the 103 affidavit-signees who swore they voted for Larry Delgado, November 5, 2001. Hockley has until June 30, 2005, to conduct the depositions at his expense.


Mike Amodio, a local attorney close to the case says the Appellate Court of the 2nd Circuit in Brooklyn has given Mr. Hockley a hard choice. Here is Mr. Amodio’s “take:” 


Dear Mr. Bailey:

       I have read your description of the Appellate Division Decision on the Delgado-Hockley case and I think it needs some clarification. 

       The Appellate Division has basically affirmed Judge Nicolai’s decision without specifically saying so.  The Appellate Division decision lists every one of Mr. Hockley’s attorney’s arguments and dismisses them all except one.  The only argument that they will even consider is the argument that the Affidavits submitted by the AG and Mr. Delgado were not valid.  After noting that a challenge to a person’s assertion of how they voted would be difficult, the Appellate Division decided to allow Mr. Hockley’s lawyers an opportunity to do so.  However, this is not what Mr. Hockley’s attorneys wanted.  They challenged the validity of the Affidavits and argued that only the voter’s sworn testimony at a trial would be sufficient.  Thus, they argued, summary judgment in favor of Delgado should have been denied and a trial should take place.  A trial would have placed the burden on the AG and Mr. Delgado to produce the 103 witnesses to testify that they voted for Mr. Delgado.

       This the Appellate Division did not do.  Instead the Appellate Division has placed the Appeal on “hold” (until June 30th) while it allows Mr. Hockley’s lawyers to depose the 103 voters who signed Affidavits swearing that they voted for Mr. Delgado.  Thus the burden is now on Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to issue Subpoenas to each of the 103 voters and cause a deposition of each of the 103 voters in the hopes that the voter will recant his/her previous sworn statement.  This will cause Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to pay for the service of a subpoena on 103 voters (at about $20 to $25 per voter), pay a witness fee of approximately $20 per voter and pay for the deposition transcript for each 103 voters.

       Because Mr. Hockley’s attorneys have attacked the validity of the Affidavits, each deposition will require Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to ask the voter if he/she knew what he/she was signing and then to ask to voter is he/she was telling the truth when he/she signed the Affidavit. 

       As the notary public who took the testimony of a good number of the voters, I can state unequivocally that the voters I dealt with knew what they were signing and were eager to sign the Affidavits.  I testified to this fact when I was deposed in the proceeding.

       I do not think this decision is a victory for Mr. Hockley’s Attorneys nor should it be categorized as such.

       Michael P. Amodio    

Posted in Uncategorized

Assessor Will Not Address BOE Budget Public Hearing Tonight

Hits: 0

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. March 21, 2005: Tonight the Board of Education is holding the first Public Hearing on the preliminary 2005-2006 Board of Education budget ($154.8 Million) at 7:30 at Education House, 5 Homeside Lane. However, the City Assessor, Eyde McCarthy, who was scheduled to address the Board of Education of the matter of certriorari trends and PILOT payments relating to the City Center, will not appear as scheduled. 


 A total of $5.8 Million in certriorari refunds have been surrendered by the Board of Education the first three months of 2005.  


Ms. McCarthy will not be making the report because she has not recovered from recent medical treatment, according to Clerk to the Board of Education, Michele Schoenfeld. Terrance Schreurs, Assistant Superintendent for Business for the School District, reported through a spokesperson that no pinch hitter for Ms. McCarthy was expected, and the information on certriorari trends and PILOT trends involving the city’s new development had been requested three weeks ago. His office did not know if the city was going to send over a written report prior to the Board of Education Public Hearing this evening.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

FLASH! The Lion Returns.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. March 21, 2005: The missing portrait of Mayor Alfred Del Vecchio has returned to its benevolent perch in the rotunda of city hall. The portrait had not been on display for eleven days. When first reported missing, a city hall spokesman said its support mechanism had been compromised by a custodian cleaning the picture and it was being repaired through the City Clerk’s office.


WPCNR has since learned the portrait was located by a maintenance man underneath the auxiliary staircase in the rear of city hall, raising the question of who or what removed and apparently hid the Del Vecchio portrait, raising questions about whether the picture was out for repairs in the first place.


The portrait was returned to its place of honor as mysteriously as it had disappeared with no pomp, ceremony or official rehanging ceremony.

Posted in Uncategorized

Hockley Ponders Whether He Will Depose 103 Affidavit Signers

Hits: 0

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. March 20, 2005: The Glen Hockley Larry Delgado saga unraveling over the last 4 and a half years going through more ups and downs, highs and lows and legal permutations than any person could have expected may finally be ending this evening — or a new beginning in the Adventure of the Jammed Voting Machine may make history again in deposing affidavit signers.


Glen Hockley was granted the right to depose the 103 affidavit signees whose signed affidavits allowed the Attorney General to mount a successful quo warranto challenge resulting in Mr. Hockley’s ouster from the Common Council, will meet with his legal team to night to determine his next step. The Appellate Court, Second Circuit in Brooklyn handed down the split decision on Mr. Hockley’s motion for a jury trial instead of the summary judgment the Attorney General requested and received from Judge Francis Nicolai last July. They upheld the Supreme Court right to make that summary judgment in the matter but ruled the Supreme Court to hear depositions of the 103 jurors by June 30 and new arguments in 30 days after that.



GLEN HOCKLEY IN MAY, 2005 at a meeting of the Common Council: An impassioned advocate while on the Common Council, fighter for affordable housing and safe housing, Hockley told WPCNR he was pleased with the decision because it showed the Supreme Court was wrong in refusing to allow deposition of the 103 Republican voters signing the affidavits. He said he and his lawyers would be discussing their next course of action this evening, and “what makes sense.”  Photo, WPCNR News Archive.


 

Posted in Uncategorized