THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR | 2,905,611 VISITORS VISIT 8,324,077 TIMES 3 TIMES EVERY DAY IN ONE YEAR. HIGHEST ACTIVITY IN WPCNR HISTORY.White PlainsCitizeNetReporter lifted its worldwide visits from unique visitors to wpcnr.com to 8,324,077,a 1,306,419 increase in visits in one year from 7,017,658 visits to the site last year which covers White Plains and Westchester County. The 8,324,077 visits were made by 2,005,611 unique visitors who visited wpcnr an average of 3 visits a day. ON JULY 20- -2026 visitors have accessed wpcnr and made 3,072 visits an average of 1.6 visits. In the last week 33,495 individual vistors made 54,458 visits, averaging 1.6 visits. In the last month, 152,940 visitors recorded 229,338 visits (1.5 visits)

Poll: How Dysfunctional Is the Common Council Anyway?

Posted on May 26, 2007 by John Bailey

WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS POLL. May 26, 2007: If you represented citizens of your city and you were told of a massive new development in the heart of your town two months ago, would you perhaps tell constituents about it, perhaps in a news conference? If you represented the citizens of your city and you were about to give away $39 Million in tax abatement over 18 years — and cut the price of a huge land parcel — would you pass it quickly or slowly? Would you examine other developer alternatives to it? If you were selling the rights to the city’s public access television audience, would you negotiate for the best deal you could possibly make regardless of what other cities did? If you were running for reelection would you put political considerations ahead of the public’s right to know? Or your convictions?

In view of the latest revelation that the Common Council knew of the Exclusivity Agreement Louis Cappelli wanted, several letter writers are aghast that the Common Council suppressed knowledge of the Station Square proposal leading up to its announcement to the public on short notice and did not vote down exclusivity outright Thursday evening.

Which leads us to this month’s poll. Is the Council as dysfunctional as other government bodies: the congress that fails to set a deadline on the Iraq pull out; the state legislature that creates tax breaks for citizens out of thin air without saying how they will be paid for? The county government that adds personnel in a tax increase year? The School Board that suppresses a $2 Million settlement brought about by a vendor they are about to hire for their largest most expensive project in history; the School District that does not costs aggressively? See what I mean about dysfunctionality.

Rate the Common Council as to how dysfunctional it is compared with other government bodies in the poll at the right, or are they better?

Pres. Admits Sta Sq Knowledge in April. Defends Exclusivity on Agenda,Tabling.

Posted on May 26, 2007 by John Bailey

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL-CHRONICLE EXAMINER. May 26, 2007: The President of the White Plains Common Council, in a statement sent to the six other Common Council members and shared with WPCNR acknowledged today that she was told in April of the Louis Cappelli Station Plaza mega complex proposed for the White Plains Metro North station district before it was publicly presented to the council in the May 10 work session.

White Plains Common Council President Rita Malmud: Admits she knew about Station Square in April, but does not give a specific date.

The model of Station Square on the site of the White Plains Transit Center, Parking Garage. In the foreground is The Galleria. Ms. Malmud Admits She Knew About It All the Way.

In Malmud’s statement, she defends to other Common Council members the policy of not voting the Exclusivity Agreement outright Thursday evening, because doing so would have prematurely killed the Exclusivity option without the public being afforded the chance to hear about it in the more widely viewed forum of the regularly scheduled monthly Council meeting June 4.

. Ms. Malmud’s statement:

” Last month I was apprised of the Capelli organization’s proposal to develop Station Plaza. At that time I received no written documents and never received anything in writing until the Council Work Session (May 10) where the notebook of photos and drawings were distributed. I received the proposed Exclusivity Agreement last Tuesday (May 22).

At that first meeting (last month) I was assured that all Council members would be equally briefed before the public disclosure that would be soon. I specifically asked about the Battle Hill neighborhood, where I believed some of the greatest impact would occur. Again, I was told discussion would happen “soon.” I volunteered the opinion then that although I believed the train station area was appropriate for the densest White Plains development, the scale being suggested was not one I was ready to endorse.

Important and controversial issues are best formally voted on at regularly scheduled, first Monday of the month meetings of the Common Council. At our Special Meetings I am quite willing to vote on routine and non-controversial issues, such as setting a date for a public hearing or forwarding documents for public and staff review. To have voted yes or no at last night’s Common Council meeting on an issue of such vast importance would have denied the public sufficient time and attention about what their public servants were deliberating. This was no emergency situation, where the public would have been endangered by a delay in voting.”

A Departure in recent policy

The rationale of affording the public more insight into the Exclusivity Agreement is a departure from the Council’s policy of late of agreeing to a series of Special Meetings to push through the LCOR Bank Street affordable housing.

By WPCNR count, the Common Council responded to an unprecedented “hurry up offense” initiated by the Administration to get the Bank Street LCOR project approved in a month with one Special Meeting a week and at times two — held at odd times in late afternoons — when the public would have difficulty attending, let alone knowing about them, or even being given an understanding of the documents and agreements approved.

These hastily contrived meetings were agreed to by the Council in a frantic rush to push through the LCOR Bank Street job, despite hammered out massaging of the legal protocols on the project. The Special Meetings were scheduled and accepted by the council, even though details of the financing gave the appearance of changing after each meeting, and the final nuances of the city’s agreement to buy back the land from LCOR if tax abatement was not created — at the very last moment.

Malmud and the rest of the Common Council, also during the May 10 meeting, did not protest vehemently that the project had density problems, to this reporter who was there. The reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Even Glen Hockley suggested incorporating a new City Hall into the project. There was no concern that the project was too big. The impression was one of awe.

Eliot Spitzer’s Albany: Rebuilding of World Trade Center Can Now Begin

Posted on May 26, 2007 by John Bailey

WPCNR’S ELIOT SPITZER’S ALBANY. By Governor Eliot Spitzer. May 25, 2007:

I am very pleased to share with you that this week, we reached a historic agreement here in New York–the largest in regulatory history, and one that one that will allow us to finally start making progress on the rebuilding of lower Manhattan.

With assistance from many New York officials, Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority reached a $2 billion settlement with seven insurance companies, resolving all outstanding insurance claims arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11. As a result, Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority will now be able to fast-track the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site and the creation of the 9/11 memorial, a project that everyone has agreed is necessary to revitalize lower Manhattan and return New York to its place as the leader in global commerce.

I am proud of how New York’s leaders came together to make this settlement possible. The collaboration between Mr. Silverstein, the officials at the Port Authority, and the leaders of the seven insurance companies shows their commitment to putting the best interests of New York first, and getting the Ground Zero project back on track. From our senators and congressional representatives in Washington, to those serving in the state senate and assembly, to Mayor Bloomberg and the members of the city council–this truly was a bipartisan effort, and one that shows a smart, productive collaboration between government and industry. Now, we can truly move forward and begin the rebuilding of lower Manhattan–something that all New Yorkers have been eagerly anticipating for the past six years.

Together, we will shape the Manhattan of the future, and ensure New York City’s status as the greatest city in the world.

Council Saw Station Drawings/ Learned of Exclusivity Need Before May 10

Posted on May 25, 2007 by John Bailey

WPCNR Common Council-Chronicle Examiner. By John F. Bailey. May 25, 2007: Councilman Benjamin Boykin told WPCNR Friday morning, that he and several other Councilpersons had seen the drawings of Louis Cappelli’s giant Station Square project, including learning of the need for an Exclusivity Agreement to negotiate with the city, about six weeks before the May 10 Work Session when Cappelli formally presented it to the Common Council.

Louis Cappelli presenting Station Square on May 10. Council appeared very surprised and stunned by the presentation. But they shouldn’t have been. Five of the 6 saw drawings 6 to 10 weeks prior according to Paul Wood, City Executive Officer, and Councilman Benjamin Boykin.

Paul Wood, City Executive Officer released a statement to WPCNR unsolicited today stating emphatically that all members of the Council with the exception of Dennis Power had been shown the drawings on the proposal two months before May 10. This is the second time the Council has done this to us, Wood says in the statement, feigning ignorance and surprise when a critical item is put forward for a vote.

Boykin told WPCNR this morning that after seeing the drawings sometime between March 10 and April 10, he was receptive to the Exclusivity Agreement, but he did not receive a copy of the Exclusivity Agreement until Tuesday evening, 48 hours before Thursday evening’s vote.

Boykin advised WPCNR Friday morning that he was one of those council people who had seen the drawings in late March to early April. Boykin did not recall the date. He did not recall the other councilmen who had seen “the drawings.”

Asked by WPCNR why the Council, if they had known about the proposal for the better part of two months, would not have voted down the Exclusivity Resolution outright Thursday evening, rather than taking the tabling action, Boykin said he wanted the full proposal aired in public at the June 4 meeting when the Exclusivity Resolution would be explained in public by Cappelli executives.

Actually, the council had the opportunity to have that very explanation Thursday evening on live television for the public to see, but the Mayor prevented Mark Weingarten, the well-known Cappelli attorney, and Bruce Berg, Louis Cappelli’s aide-de-camp, from stepping to the podium to speak on the Exclusivity Agreement for some reason.

Boykin said the reason he was prepared to vote against the Exclusivity Agreement last night was that he had not seen the text of the Exclusivity Resolution until Tuesday night. The original presentation was made to the council May 10. Boykin also said the Exclusivity Agreement had the effect of committing the council to the project.

Asked if the Council would demand a monetary fee for the Exclusivity favor to Mr. Cappelli, Boykin did not say. It is also not known why, if the council was not prepared to vote on it, why the Council President Rita Malmud would allow it to be placed on the agenda

Paul Wood detailed the sequence of the birth of the Station Square project in this statement released to WPCNR today:

In the interest the record John, I offer the following:

Louis Cappelli approached the administration a few months ago (6 months) to discuss some concepts regarding the train station, office development, and some city-owned parcels in that section of town.

A couple of months ago, (March 10 to April 10) Louis presented his plan to the Mayor and administration officials and asked for feedback. The plan was then subsequently shown to each Council Member none of whom voiced any opposition to the “concept,” but all agreed that the proposal would face much more scrutiny should the plan move forward. The only Council Member not to view the proposal was Dennis Power, who declined an invitation from the Mayor’s Office to do so, prior to Mr. Cappelli’s presentation at the work session. (May 10)

It was Mr. Cappelli, not the administration, who asked that the matter be put on for a vote on May 24. We acted on his request and the council “tabled” the item, thus halting any discussion and preventing Mr. Cappelli’s representatives from discussing the issues related to it, at that meeting.

Let’s be clear, the Mayor in his Economic Development Plans Two and Three had already articulated a vision for this section of the downtown, one very similar to the Cappelli proposal. But the City was not actively seeking to market the city-owned parcels at this time.

Mr. Cappelli had a very creative idea regarding this section of the City, coupled that with the realities of the office market at this time and brought a unique proposal to the City. No other developers have approached the City in recent history regarding the city-owned parcels in question. Mr. Cappelli, asked the City simply to give him a period of time (in this case seven months) to protect his “intellectual property,” or creative vision for the area, by not acting to move on the parcels in question.

It seemed a fair proposal. Why would any developer with a creative vision and the track record of completion that he has had in White Plains, spend several hundred thousand dollars to develop the vision into a concrete proposal only to have someone else highjack the idea and offer the City something else.

Again, the City was NOT actively engaged in marketing the parcels at this time. In order for the City to do so, it would require the City to go to the expense of undertaking studies, appraisals, and other preparatory work in order to develop a concrete proposal for the area.

Mr. Cappelli did show his proposal to the executive board of the Battle Hill Association at meeting earlier this week. The representatives of the Association were very receptive and open to the idea, especially to the new train station that would be included in the plan.

In any case, the proposal was not being “rushed” in any way by the administration and the “exclusivity agreement” had nothing to do with approving the resulting project. It only would have enabled the developer to refine his creative vision into a concrete proposal without the fear of the idea being “ripped off” by someone else for seven months. At the end of that period he would return with a plan that the Mayor and Council could accept and work with or reject.

I also need to defend the administration which is attacked routinely as being engaged in “secret” negotiations and “springing” things upon the Council. The Council was informed of Mr. Cappelli’s idea shortly after the administration became aware of it, and was briefed on it.

This is the second time in recent months when the Council was involved in the development of a proposal (the other being the most recent New York Hospital proposal for parkland) at nearly the same time as the administration. In both cases, the Mayor was then left out of discussions the council members then subsequently had before the issues were brought to the floor.