Correspondence about lifting the restriction on additional banks in downtown Chappaqua
July 3, 2009
Editor’s note: On June 9, the town board held a public hearing on whether to lift the restriction on additional banks occupying first floor space in downtown Chappaqua. Before the hearing, Joan Ripley, former president of Second Story Book Shop sent a letter to the town board encouraging the reinstatement of the retail-only moratorium, which was published in NewCastleNOW.org on June 12. Click here to see that original letter. What follows is Superintendent Barbara Gerrard’s response and Ripley’s follow-up to that. The final public hearing on this topic will take place at town hall on Tuesday, July 14.
Dear Joan:
The Town Board is struggling to balance the competing concerns about commercial vacancies and a thriving downtown. The Public Hearing last night was adjourned, and we will continue to consider all the issues presented.
I have attached a copy of the Supervisor’s Report presented last night which discusses some of the issues. [Click here for Supervisor’s Report].
Thank you for your comments and your concern about the Town. I know the Town appreciates the hard work and dedication you have given to your Bookstore for decades. Yours is one to the stores I make reference to in my report.
Unfortunately, the idea that a Town could give financial incentives is beyond our legal capability. In cities large enough to have BIDs—business improvement districts—the commercial property owners themselves are taxed separately to support the local business community, but New Castle has been told time and again that there is simply not enough commercial availability to ever have a self-sustaining business improvement district.
Again, thank you for all you have meant to the entire community.
Yours truly,
Barbara Gerrard
To: New Castle Town Board
From: Joan Ripley
Thank you Barbara for taking the time to answer my email. I know you are a very busy person and I appreciate your attention. I read your report and would like to offer a few more comments.
I’m sorry the Town cannot offer financial incentives; they would go a long way in improving our business district…small as it might be.
On point 1. I just have trouble agreeing that we should change the legislation based on the probability that other banks might decide to leave Chappaqua. We have to deal with what we have now, which is enough banks to service our community. Letting another bank that already has two locations in our community open a third does not seem to fit the Town’s goals to increase pedestrian traffic and encourage local shopping. It seems to be just the opposite. Why would someone who has been banking with Chase in Millwood or up the hill, where there is adequate and easy parking in both instances, change their habits and frequent another branch?
On Point 2. All of our towns have empty storefronts these days. I agree, it makes a town look very forlorn. But there is such a simple solution to empty store fronts contributing to a perception that the town is not a viable opportunity. I wrote about this too, several years ago, when we had many vacancies. If the Town Board let Non-Profit Organizations utilize the empty windows to display their story it could have many benefits. The organization could advertise their mission, the community might pull together as a community, and instead of looking worn out we just might look up-and-coming and create a positive image. Naturally the displays would have to be approved by someone to insure that they were worthy of this type of promotion, but it would change a dismal look into something that projected a real community spirit. Case in point: Look at the wonderful image that Eric Nicolaysen’s front window displays. Does this make it look as if this town is on its way out?
On Point 3. It would really make me unhappy if your decision was based on the fact that small businesses are less likely to open and if they would, are more likely to fail. Does this mean that big-box stores are the only answer for Chappaqua?
On Point 4. Perhaps it is time to look at the commercial assessments? If they are predicated on fair rental value, perhaps this value is too much. As I said before, I don’t think rents that approach Manhattan real estate works in our community. As for the fiscal impact on our entire town, it would seem that it must be a very small percentage to the entire tax base and it is hard to believe that the fiscal impact would be severe. I know those numbers are available to crunch and I would be interested to see a “what if” analysis of the impact this would have on our residential taxes. A ? Percentage reduction in commercial real estate values would result in approximately a ? Percentage increase in the average homeowner’s bill. This is really the heart of the problem. Landlords need to pay the taxes, merchants can’t afford to pay the required rents and our hometown will look like either one big box or a ghost town. Neither is acceptable in my opinion.
Thank you for your consideration.
For a cross-section of residents’ opinions on this subject, see NewCastleNOW.org’s article of June 8, 2009, “UPDATE: Public hearing Tuesday, June 9, on allowing banks to rent space in downtown Chappaqua.” See photos, below:
66 King Street in downtown Chappaqua
Nicolaysen’s storefront at 77 South Greeley Avenue; see “Crazy-coated animals party hearty in downtown Chappaqua.”
_____________________________________________________
Thanks for reading NewCastleNOW.org.
What do you like about the site? How could it be better?
Let us hear from you.
Write .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
_____________________________________________________
