THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

WPCNR MAIN STREET JOURNAL. September 11, 2007: Cappelli Enterprises today issued a statement from its President, Louis R. Cappelli, reacting to the Common Council published letter in the White Plains Times last week. The Council letter, signed by Benjamin Boykin, Rita Malmud, Thomas Roach, and Dennis Power (Power and Boykin are running in the Democratic Primary September 18), stated they opposed the RFQ process initiated by the city and sent to a reported 22 developers for Qualifications in developing the city owned land surrounding the White Plains Metro-North Railroad Station. The Council letter also stated the RFQ was “tilted” towards Cappelli Enterprises.

Louis R. Cappelli. May, 2007. The Super Developer responds.

Here is the Comments from Louis R. Cappelli on the Council letter:

We have been surprised by the tenor of the letter sent by White Plains Common Council members Malmud, Boykin, Roach and Power with regard to the recent Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) sent to interested parties by the White Plains city administration. The letter imp[lies that the RFQ was written to benefit Cappelli Enterprises.

Since our participation at the May council meeting and our subsequent withdrawal of our request for an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, we have not indicated an intention to pursue developing any of these city-owned parcels. It became clear to us that the risk of spending $3 Million for planning studies was too great based on City Council sentiment expressed at the May public meeting.

To be clear: We have absolutely no intention of responding to this RFQ.

Since our meeting with the Common Council in May, we have held informational meetings with various community groups and community leaders from across the city in an effort to gauge the level of community support for any development project in the area surrounding the train station. Not surprisingly, many individuals and groups expressed support for the concept of redeveloping the train station area and they requested ongoing community involvement which of course we would always support.

We are very interested in what happens at the train station since we have invested over $1 Billion in downtown White Plains. The station area is the “gateway” to the city and is in dire need of rehabilitation. It certainly does not represent the new, upscale, cosmopolitan White Plains.

We further believe that the city should push for the redevelopment and modernization of train station and the related sites while the office market in Manhattan is still strong. This is crucially important because the viability and success of White Plains station project will depend to a great degree on the strength of the office market in Manhattan.

It is flattering to think that one of the reasons that the RFQ is deemed to be favorable towards my company is because we are considered to be uniquely qualified to build mixed use, large-scale projects. At the same time it is puzzling to note that at a time of increasing market volatility, lower risk tolerance, and waning appetites for large-scale investment, the Common Council is choosing to delay a project of this import.

It is worth remembering that such a redevelopment brings with it the prospect of 1,000 new construction jobs, thousands of new permanent jobs and numerous other project benefits such as new property and sales tax revenues and, of course, a new train station.

Still more suprising is the fact that the same Common Council members who have been huge supporters of the downtown revitalization over the past seven years would now sign a letter opposing this RFQ. It is nothing more than a request for developers to submit their qualifications. What mroe competitive process could be asked for?

Ironically it is the very same Council that mandated that there be an RFQ process that was (to) be open to competition and that would include a significant requirement for public input, has now turned its back on that very idea.

Louis R. Cappelli

President

Cappelli Enterprises

(WPCNR forwarded questions to Mr. Cappelli regarding matters this statement touches upon before WPCNR received this statement. Mr. Cappelli has responded and WPCNR will be publishing that exclusive interview shortly.)

WPCNR HALLS OF ALBANY. September 11, 2007 UPDATED September 12, 2007: Assemblyman Adam T. Bradley of the 89^th District clarified today he was ready and willing to sponsor a home rule legislation enacting a  ½% increase in the White Plains sales tax (raising it to 2-1/2%),  provided the city documented the expected $10 Million in anticipated revenue from the increased was indeed needed to cover expected city budget gaps in the following years.

Assemblyman Adam T. Bradley, Memorial Day Ceremony May, 2007.

The Common Council had voted to table the Mayor’s home rule request on the increase ostensibly because Mr. Bradley’s support was not behind the bill. This was the council’s first outright opposition to the sales tax increase it has expressed, though the Mayor has been touting the increase since last spring. Two of the members of the Common Council face a primary election next Tuesday, September 12.

Bradley told WPCNR that he did not want his position sensationalized, but confirmed he needed specific information from the city before he could support the ½% sales tax:

“All I’ve asked for is reasonable information that explains what the projected gaps are in the budget for the next several years so that we know what their real need is. That’s all I’ve asked for,” Bradley explained. “I’ve indicated to the city that I intend to fill those gaps. But, we need to know what they are. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request. I’m still waiting for the city to provide that information. That’s all.”

WPCNR has contacted the Mayor’s Office asking when the city would provide such projections to Mr. Bradley.