Kirkpatrick Isolates Issues City Review of Compehensive Plan Does Not Address.

WPCNR North End News. April 5, 2005: The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee held its fourth public meeting Tuesday evening at George Washington School. The Citizens Plan Committee which spearheaded the formation of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee had one spokesperson deliver their take on the process. John Kirkpatric isolated six areas of concern that he and the committee feels need to be addressed by the CPRC.


The next meeting the CPRC will hold will be on April 10th at 12:30 P.M. at Centro Hispano, at which WPCNR understands their will be translation offered in Spanish. This will be followed by a sixth meeting at Thomas H. Slater Center, 7:30, April 12. The public is encouraged to attend and make know their views on White Plains growth, development and their visions for the White Plains future. Here is the text of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s remarks:


Transcript of Remarks of John Kirkpatrick speaking for the Citizen Plan Committee, Tuesday Evening:


 


The Citizens’ Plan committee came together from a concern that the City was not addressing the implications of recent change. Put simply, the planning achievements of the 1997 Plan, projected to occur over fifteen years, were occurring much more rapidly – more like seven years.


 


In response to our pushing, the Mayor and Council appointed you, the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee. You have been meeting and addressing at each meeting two major agenda items: first, and in great detail, what has occurred in terms of Plan implementation; and second, comments of the public on chosen subject areas.


 


Your willingness to do this is very much appreciated. You are performing a public service. However, we are very concerned that you are missing the big picture.


 


White Plains has a rich and noteworthy tradition of city planning and a respected and well-deserved reputation as a planned city. Its strength lies in its geographic location, its diverse population, its variety of housing types and neighborhoods, its well-defined commercial districts, and the substantial amount of public and privately-owned open space interspersed throughout the city.


 


A great deal of development and redevelopment has taken place in White Plains since the 1997 Plan. Exactly as was the case with the development that followed the 1977 Plan, the most interesting point in an examination of such development is the difference in its pattern. Some sectors were hugely successful, others not so, and some were totally unforeseen.


 


A major lesson to be learned from that is this: the City is not an island. Increasingly, the City is subject to what is rapidly becoming a world economy. Thus, planning for White Plains requires an understanding and appreciation of all the influences on the city’s economy, including world, national, state, regional and local. This understanding and the City’s choices must then be projected over the period of any plan.


 


What does this mean for White Plains and the big picture?


 


Most immediately, it means that your Committee should seriously address six major issues. Your Committee needs to get beyond enumeration of accumulated successes, and start a serious discussion of some major concerns.  None of these are new issues – unfortunately – but we are running out of time.


 


These issues are:


 


1.  Finances – we are too dependent on sales taxes


2.  Migration – this Country was built on migration, and it made us great. White Plains can also benefit, but we need to understand the people moving in and plan for their needs and their contributions.


3.  Quality of our Schools and its effect on property values – we need to recognize this interdependence and treat the school system as a community resource.


4.  Housing – we need to provide for all income strata.


5.  Commercial trends – we cannot let the World Economy pass us by.


6.  Health care – both in terms of health care delivery to our citizens and in terms of the vitality of our health care infrastructure


 


Given how limited the amount of citizen participation has been, we urge you to resist the pressures to meet some arbitrary timetable and produce a final report within a month or two.  Such a timeline will not allow for the level of analysis, research and public consideration of options that we believe is essential, given the seriousness and complexity of the issues that confront our City.


 


There is substantial unease in this City, and considerable disagreement among its citizenry about the directions that the City administration is taking.  Your committee has the potential to create a process that will invite citizens to contribute ideas and suggestions about this City’s future, in an effort to reach some consensus about a vision and set of priorities for future development. We ask you to take the time necessary to do your job well, and to enlist whatever resources you need to assist you in your efforts.  Your responsibilities are too important to be subjected to an imposed political calendar.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

White Plains Watch Changes Owners. Casey Takes Over from Chang

WPCNR METROPOLITAN MEDIA. April 5, 2005: Susan Arterian Chang, founder and publisher of The White Plains Watch, White Plains monthly newspaper since 1997, has announced she is leaving the Watch. Her Co-Publisher, Patricia Casey is the new sole owner of the paper. The announcement was made in an editorial appearing in the new issue of the paper out Monday.


Ms Chang writes: “It is with a mixture of emotions that I now take my leave of The Watch to attend to family matters and to explore the next chapter of my working life. Watch readers and I are so fortunate that Pat Casey will be assuming my place on the Watch as its publisher and owner. Pat came on board the paper last May as editor of our “Living Section” and joined me as Co-Publisher in November. She brings to the paper over 20 years of publishing experience, most recently as editor and publisher of several communications publications — she possesses the vision and crusading temperament to carry on the tradition of community journalism that the Watch and its reporters have held as their standard. I know you will join me in welcoming and supporting her.”


The Watch has experienced circulation difficulties and financial troubles for the last two years. First, suspending automatic delivery to all residences across the city in favor of paid subscription sales, which reached approximately 2,000 circulation.  It also sought contributions from avid readers to keep the publication afloat. Recently, the publication has resumed mailing copies without charge to certain residences in the city.

Posted in Uncategorized

Mike Gismondi Carefully Considers.

WPCNR MR. AND MS. AND MRS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. April 4, 2005: Commissioner of Building, Mike Gismondi has written The CitizeNetReporter, politely declining specific response to some of the opinions expressed by readers. Here is Mr. Gismondi’s reply:


Dear John,

I had an opportunity to read the comments to
my statement to you from dan ([email protected]).

I will not be a part of this kind of banter.
I don’t have the time and it wouldn’t be fair to
the taxpayers.

My statement to you still stands as printed.

Thank you,

Mike Gismondi

Posted in Uncategorized

Council Unanimously Approves 400 Feet Heights In the Downtown.

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. By John F. Bailey. April 4, 2005, UPDATED 11:15 P.M. E.D.T.: The Common Council unanimously adopted a zoning ordinance increasing heights of buildings permitted in the Central Business District to 400 feet on 300,000 square foot parcels. The ordinance is the first step towards approving the Cappelli Hotel-Condoplex site plan amendment which was scheduled for resolution at a public hearing April 21st, where it is expected to be voted upon.


In approving the ordinance, Councilpersons Rita Malmud said she wanted explanation of the Cappelli organization’s communication delivered earlier Monday to agree to construct affordable housing units only after an “unappealable” approval of the 221 Main Street project. Malmud also said she wanted the specific number of affordable units and their locations as to where they would be built spelled out. 


Councilman Benjamin Boykin stated that in his opinion, there could be no payment of a “fee in lieu”  for any units Mr. Cappelli failed to build of the proposed 41 units required by the Common Council (split between Cappelli’s City Center committment and the 221 Main Street Hotel-Condo affordable units quota).  Mr. Cappelli’s representatives raised the issue of “a fee in lieu” as part of the possible agreements to be considered April 21.


In background material justifying the new ordinance, the Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel writes that only three areas in the Central Business District have any “significant development potential,” and they are Gateway I Garage and the Gateway II site; St. John’s Church, School, ConEdison substation and 170 Hamilton Avenue, and 221 Main Street/City Center development site. The implication being that the Central Business District would not be turned into stepping stones of 400 foot towers by passage of the ordinance. Habel’s letter notes that the Common Council would have to designate such sites for development.


However, Habel, in a different Planning Department letter to the council addressed the potential for 400 foot tower growth in the downtown. Her letter mentions eight other sites that “create a potential development site of 300,000 square feet or greater,” (the threshold qualifying for 400 feet height, under the just approved ordinance). The eight sites in the 11 blocks of the Central Business District are:


1.The Centroplex.


2. Verizon Building and 80 Main Street


3. Gateway I.


4. Financial Center and Pace University


5. 10 Bank Street, The Seasons Condos, Tower Club (Senior Housing) and Mt. Carmel.


6. 3-5 Barket Avenue, office buildings and Residence Inn.


7. Infiniti Motors.


8. 40 Water Street Office Building.


The Planning Department letter dismisses these sites as 400 foot possibilities because “The Planning Department found that most of these blocks are improved with relatively new developments.”


The Planning Department letter further allays fears of “a march of the 400 foot towers,”  with a mad developer acquisition spree, by pointing out that only the Common Council can make such a march possible: “The Planning Department finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance (enacted Monday evening), has potential applicability only if the Common Council determines first that a series of adjacent and “across the street” parcels in at least two or more blocks should be designated as a single development site for purposes of applying the dimensional regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.That determination is a discretionary action, and must, itself, be based on an environmental review and proper record.”

Posted in Uncategorized