Wood Vindicated: Council’s Dump RFQ Letter Violates Open Meetings Law

 


WPCNR City Hall Circuit. From The Mayor’s Office. September 14, 2007 UPDATED September 15, 2007: City Hall announced this evening  it had been informed the New York State Committee on Open Government finds  Common Council President Rita Malmud, Councilmen Thomas Roach, Benjamin Boykin and Dennis Power  appear to have violated the Open Meetings Law  by publishing their united opposition to the Request for  Qualifications last week. 


In a press account Saturday morning, the Committee was reported as “backing off” this interpretation, but no explanation was reported as to the nature of the qualification, and Dennis Power was reported as not remembering how the RFQ rejection was formulated whether in a meeting, by phone, or other procedure.



Paul Wood, City Executive Officer, left, and Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel. September, 2006 WPCNR News Archive Photo


The 4 councilpersons published their united (majority) opposition to the city’s Request for Qualifications sent to area developers to cast for developers of the station area, in last week’s edition of The White Plains Times, without informing Councilpersons Glen Hockley and Arnold Bernstein or the Mayor or deliberating it before the public.


According to Paul Wood, Camille S. Jobin-Davis, Assistant Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government in Albany expressed the opinion today that, by not expressing their opposition to the RFQ document during a public meeting, “I do not believe that they could validly have acted.”


Wood reports that Jobin-Davis observes that even if the councilpersons circulated the letter and signed on to it without discussion, she believes the  publishing of the letter, “to be action taken outside the requirements of the law.”


 In the letter, the 4 councilmen wrote, “We therefore publicly and unequivocably state our opposition to this process (the RFQ). We serve notice that we do not support the RFQ recently released by the Mayor’s office through the commissioner of planning and will avail ourselves of all measures at our disposal to bring this ill-considered proposal to a quick end.”


Wood said the city was contemplating the Committee on Open Government ruling, and said he was “bewildered, considering the Council has always professed a passion for open government.”


The ruling provided to the city, vindicates Wood’s gut feeling first reported by WPCNR this week that the letter was a violation of the open meetings law. Wood said, “they are allowed to caucus, but they cannot come to a decision. However, I and the Mayor are bewildered because whenever we ask the Common Council President are you caucusing, she always denies it.”


Ms. Jobin-Davis’ opinion, in addition, asserts that the intention of the law — to allow the public the opportunity to observe public officials in discussion — “cannot be realized if members of a public body conduct public business as a body or vote by phone, by mail, or by e-mail.”


 


The Letter, as published, last week:


Posted in Uncategorized

Cappelli:Extend Affordable Housing Deadline — I’ll Save The Corner Nook

WPCNR THE DEVELOPER NEWS. By John F. Bailey. September 13, 2007: Louis Cappelli, President of Cappelli Enterprises, announced to WPCNR that he is launching a Save the Corner Nook Campaign to let the Nook stay in business. Telling WPCNR  he was touched by columnist Phil Reisman’s impassioned commentary in The Journal News today about the imminent Corner Nook demolition expected November 1 — Mr. Cappelli announced he has asked Common Council President Rita Malmud and the White Plains Common Council to extend the August 8, 2008 deadline for completion of the affordable housing units  Cappelli Enterprises is obligated to open prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy for the Residences at Ritz-Carlton second tower.  




Cappelli Asks Council to Let Him “Save The Nook”


Cappelli told WPCNR Wednesday evening he is obligated to finish the affordable units by August 8, which in order to do so, he would have to start building on The Corner Nook, Continental Deli site in November to meet that deadline. In order to do so, he would have to demolish the Corner Nook as soon as possible after The Nook and the delicatessen business vacate the premises. “This way (if the council extends the completion date),” Cappelli said, “The Nook can stay in business, while I can work with them to find a nice place (to relocate). Everybody wins. “


Cappelli said he would work with Mr. Reisman on a “Save The Nook” Campaign.


When Mrs. Malmud was telephoned by WPCNR to get her reaction to the Super Developer’s request, her answering machine was on. WPCNR awaits her reaction. The Nook and the Delicatession have until October 31 to vacate the premises according to the court order of Justice Barbara Leak. But Mrs. Malmud and the Council appear to hold the fate of the Nook in their hands now.


Here is the text of Mr. Cappelli’s request to Mrs. Malmud and The Common Council on The Corner Nook behalf, reprinted with permission:


 


Rita there has been a lot of sentiment around town and certainly in the
newspapers especially that heartfelt piece today written by my good
friend Phil Reisman about the future of The Corner Nook a family
business that has been a staple in White Plains for 25 years!


They are a represenation of the American Dream and have no other place in White
Plains to go.


I for one would love for them to stay except I have an
affordable housing obligation which can only be satisfied in time on
this 240 main site.


Can you as Council President help The Corner Nook in
their plight by extending my August 08 completion date for one more
year?


This way The Corner Nook can stay in business and no one thinks
that I am the bad guy here hurting the “little guy” who is
representative of the “American Dream”! 


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Council 4 RFQ Rejection Could Violate Charter; RFQ Still In Effect. No Rewrite.

WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. By John F. Bailey. September 12, 2007: The city will consider any submissions received in response to the council-rejected Request for Qualifications to developers to redevelop the area around the White Plains railroad station, City Hall stated today, but the Mayor’s Office raised another issue that the public stand by 4 councilpersons acting in consort in secret violated the City Charter. 



Paul Wood City Executive Officer, September 2006. WPCNR File Photo.


Any responses to the RFQ will be forwarded to the Common Council for their consideration, Paul Wood, City Executive Officer told WPCNR today. “The RFQ is still in effect,” Wood said.






 Paul Wood, City Executive Officer, issued a statement today on WPCNR’s query of what was the status of any responses the city receives from developers that may be received based on the controversial RFQ. Wood said the RFQ is still in effect, despite 4 members of the Common Council announcing last week that they  “unequivocally state our opposition to this process (the RFQ).”


“The RFQ is still in the market, but I would be shocked beyond belief that anyone would respond since a majority of the council people have publicized the fact that they are not going to support it,” Wood said.


All submissions received will be forwarded to the Council


Asked  what happens to a company like Reckson who submits within the deadline of the RFQ (September 30), would the city consider their proposal Wood said, “The council has already said they won’t consider anybody. Let me tell you what happens now, they have, in effect, precluded at least one person from submitting (Cappelli Enterprises). I think I’d rather see what they are going to say. “


WPCNR asked if the city would not rule out holding any proposals received in abeyance and submitting them once a new RFQ procedure had been established.


Wood said “The issue is they (the council) are policy makers. They are not administrators. RFQs are developed by the administration. They (the council) can vote it up or down any way they want. But they cannot draw up a new RFQ, that’s not their duty by charter.”


No Rewrite of the RFQ Being Considered: Wood


Asked if the administration was planning on sitting down with the four councilpersons who criticized the RFQ, and hammering out a new procedure acceptable to Councilpersons Boykin, Malmud, Roach and Power, Wood said the administration would not:


“No. Because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the current one. The RFQ does not ask anyone for a plan, an idea. It asks for nothing more than the qualifications of the builder and an ability of putting up the money ($3 Million for the study). From that group the council can choose whoever they want, or  they may choose a partnership of two or three (developers). They can do anything they want. They can say they don’t want anybody. They may say they want that guy or that guy. Or pick this that and another one. The  RFQ is not bonding in any way. Their charge it’s tilted toward Cappelli is ludicrous considering the fact he is not interested in it anyway.”


If any qualifications submissions come in, Wood said he would forward them to the council.


Charter Violation?


Wood raised the issue that possibly the Common Council 4 issuing the statement against the RFQ had violated the open meetings law of the City Charter.


The Charter states in Section 28: “…Four (4) members of the council will constitute a quorum, and unless otherwise proved by law, the affirmative vote of four (4) members shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or pass any measure coming before it.”


Reading Section 29 of the Charter, one finds…”The common council shall determine the rules of its own proceedings. Its meetings shall be public, except when the public interests require secrecy, but no vote shall be taken in secret or executive session. Its records shall be open to public inspection. The passage of an ordinance, unless otherwise herein provided, shall require the affirmative vote of at least four (4) members.


Wood observed  the Council 4 who jointly signed the letter published in the press had been “caucusing” in secret “obviously,” which he said considering they publicly announced their “decision” in public without informing the other three members of the council appeared to violate the Charter open meetings law by voting on a policy in secret.


“They accuse us all the time of not being open,” Wood said, “Yet they do something like this.” 

Posted in Uncategorized

Enter Reckson. Will Go Ahead with RFQ Submission Tho RFQ Status in Limbo

 


WPCNR THE DEVELOPER NEWS. By John F. Bailey. September 12, 2007: By coincidence, the same day Cappelli Enterprises announced it would not send in qualifications to the White Plains RFQ request for Station area development,  The Director for the Westchester-Connecticut Division of Reckson, John Barnes, announced  his company would.



The Men from Reckson Quietly Step in. John Barnes of Reckson, right, and Michael Zarin of Zarin & Steinmetz, appeared before the Council of Neighborhood Associations Tuesday evening, saying they were going full speed ahead with the city Request for Qualifications for the railroad station area.


 Barnes told WPCNR Reckson,  a division of SL Green, Inc, the country leader in Class A Office Space properties, would continue compiling its qualifications to develop the area around the White Plains train station area. He told WPCNR it was not quite clear to him what the status of the Request for Qualifications procedure was Tuesday night. ( The RFQ process was thrown into a state of suspended animation last week when the RFQ process was rejected as favoring one developer by four members of the Common Council).





 


What to do with the RFQ in a Holding Pattern?


Barnes said his company was proceeding as if the RFQ  was still in effect and that the company credentials  would be considered by the city. He said he would be contacting City Hall for direction in the near future.


 A call to city hall this morning by WPCNR, asking what position the Mayor’s Office was taking towards submissions from developers to the Council-denounced RFQ , indicated a decision on how it would handle submissions to the RFQ that are received has not be formulated yet


Asked if Reckson would consider partnering with other developers eventually should the Reckson yet-to-be-articulated station proposal be accepted by the Common Council, Mr. Barnes told WPCNR it was premature, but did not rule out a collaboration. Right now Barnes said Reckson was enterting the process, getting ideas of what residents wanted for the city.


Cappelli Enterprises had entered on this process last month at the Council of Neighborhood Associations.


Enter the CNA


Last night, Mr. Barnes and Michael Zarin of Zarin & Steinmetz, appeared at the same Council before fourteen representatives of the neighborhoods to get the representatives’ input on what they envisioned for the station area.


In roundrobin fashion, each representative asked a question, expressing their concerns. The consensus was the persons attending did not want 50-story towers, they wanted more open space even a park around the station, and most did not see any serious problems with the present Metro North Railroad Station. They wanted the density of the buildings limited, perhaps to 28 stories. No one said how many buildings they wanted.  Another theme that came up was the need  to have the buildings lower than the 40 and 50-story buildings at Mamaroneck and Main, an indirect criticism of the Station Square proposal shown them by Joseph Apicella of Cappelli Enterprises last month. Emphasis on more inclusion of the community in planning was also voiced sharply by some CNA representatives.


Offer of extensive community involvement


In his remarks, Barnes said Reckson “focused” on building “Class A Office Space,” owning 600,000 square feet of office properties in White Plains. He told the gathering, the station area “is of interest to us. We think there’s an opportunity there, and we’d certainly like to participate.” He said they were in a process of “speaking to everyone as to what’s important to the city, to the community, and to the administration.” He described what he had learned so far was that “open space is important to the city, the station is an important gateway to the city and whatever you do there has to be some kind of gateway to the city. Some glitzy slide show to sell you on what we think is right for the city,” was not appropriate.  “We want the opportunity to participate. We are in receipt of the RFQ …we’re here to  collect a menu of ideas (from you)…we want to hear what you have to say.”


Barnes went as far as saying a public park at the station was a major part of their preliminary plans, but said they had not brought an architect “on board” yet.


Michael Zarin of Zarin & Steinmetz of White Plains, attorney for Reckson promised the possibility of an extensive outreach for citizen input should Reckson be selected as the Designated Redeveloper (though the process rejected by four members of the Common Council last week) made reference to Newburgh where his law firm conducted an intense planning process with that city’s citizens and city government to articulate a major development that city is planning. Zarin said a team of 35 professionals and 10 consultants met with citizens and stakeholders in Newburgh in what he described “a good grassroots planning effort.” He said assured that Reckson wanted to be responsible to the comprehensive plan for the station area, define the character of the area, and have “serious public open space.”


Zarin said using public money for the planning of  what could be done at the station (the studies called for), is “a major component of what we’re thinking about.”


Zarin assured Marc Pollitzer that Reckson would include the people of the city “in a rational planning process, to do something that is really great and memorable project for White Plains. Reckson has the resources and capability. We’re all for a full-blown process.”


No Pressure from Reckson. Guarded Optimism on Office Space Volatility


Barnes said ‘I’m not going to sit here and tell you there’s a gun to your head and it’s now or never.”


Barnes said when asked about the office space market, said “At the end of the day, we’ll eventually run a process, even if the economic cycle is not making sense now.”


He said in the next year and a half he was seeing Class A Office space problems now. In the next 2-1/2 to 3 years, it might not be (having problems). “It’s not do (now) or die,” he said.


He was asked if he was planning the same number of buildings with the same heights as the Station Square project.


Barnes said he had “trouble making sense of their (Cappelli Enterprises) numbers,” and said the Reckson thinking was the project would not be as high as the Station Square concept, “but sizable enough to not put up a wall across Battle Hill, and put a viable product that Reckson can afford to build.”


Reckson’s Barnes said “I don’t plan 50 story towers, but sometimes that makes sense. “ He promised whatever the project turns out to be, it would eventually be of economic benefit to the city.


Asked about Reckson requiring Payments In Lieu of Taxes, Barnes said “PILOTS create issues. You plan then present. The planning goes with the costs. You try and fit your plan into all that evaluation.”


Reckson’s Barnes did not rule out a PILOT.


 


 

Posted in Uncategorized