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

 

WPCNR Highlands Night Out. By John F. Bailey. March 23, 2005:  The Comprehensive Plan Review Committee met to elicit comment from residents of the “Close-In Neighborhoods” Tuesday evening at Highlands Middle School. Citizens were informed by Co Chairperson Mary Cavallero that two sub groups of the committee had been formed to study the CORE (downtown) area and the Infrastructure & Financial Considerations on the city.

 

The subgroups, Cavallero said would report back to the committee-at-large. The committee-at-large would digest the subgroup findings. The at large committee would issue a preliminary report on the comprehensive plan, the public would be invited to comment on the Committee’s preliminary report. Finally the CPRC would be revised and turned over to the Common Council for their acceptance – perhaps with specific recommendations on changes and directions of growth that could be added to the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Cavallero said this could include acceptance of the plan as being on target, in need of revisions in certain areas or  as sweeping as a recommendation that a new Comprehensive Plan needed to be created.

Asked if the final review of the plan could include Comprehensive Plan Review Committee policy recommendations as to how the city should develop as changes to the Comprehensive Plan to the Common Council, John Martin, Co-Chair of the Committee said “That’s a fair statement.”

 

The committee and audience of 60 persons filling 10 rows of seats listened to a 36 minute presentation of Ms. Habel on the projects and issues that the administration had instituted in the “Close-In” Neighborhoods. The initial portion of the meeting was taken up by protesting citizens saying there had not been enough notification of the meetings across the city. It emerged that only Council of Neighborhood Assocations representatives and neighborhood associations in the “Close-In Neighborhoods” only were noticed. There was no citywide notification by the city. The Journal News was singled out for criticism by the Planning Department for not printing advance notices of the meetings, though sent press releases.

 

There was no commentary on specific development issues in any of the close-in neighborhoods. Comments centered on the CORE area for the second meeting in a row, and the issues of traffic, height, density of population, pollution, and congestion were the main themes.

 

 Mention was made of the St. Agnes property potential for creating further issues on the North Street corridor. The condition of parking at the railroad station was raised. Tom Rosenthal criticized the city for making progress on little issues on a piece-by-piece basis but not on big issues, saying “it doesn’t take planning, it takes brains.”

 

A good showing of younger residents in their late twenties and thirties appeared for the first time in the second of a series of four “neighborhood” meetings. Their concerns raised the issues of affordable housing again on a most human first-hand experience. Another resident challenged the city to stop protecting “the slumlords” of White Plains who permit illegal housing.

 

 

 

Mary Cavallero advised that future CPRC meetings: three more would entertain comment on all neighborhoods of the city and comments could be e-mailed to the Planning Department.

 

The meetings are as follows: Tuesday, Mar 29 to discuss Outer Areas, Major Properties and Gateways/Major Corridors within them; Tuesday, Apr 5 to discuss Community Resources and Implementation

 

The CPRC asserted they were listening to the community, and wanted to listen.

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