Letter to the Editor: Supervisor Gerrard defends her board’s review of Chappaqua Crossing
November 7, 2011
by Barbara S. Gerrard
On behalf of the present Town Board and its predecessor, I feel it necessary to correct the appalling misrepresentations that have been made about the process involving the very complicated and detailed review of the proposal known as Chappaqua Crossing.
In particular, I take personal umbrage at the statement made by the ill-informed that the Town Board only took up the issue of the Town’s commercial base “late in the review.” To the absolute contrary, at the Board’s December 12, 2006 meeting, in which the original Summit Greenfield application for a zoning change to permit 348 residential units was rejected, I addressed their counsel with the following concerns:
“Our Master Plan really talks about this being the major commercial site in the Town of New Castle outside of the hamlets. There isn’t any other place for such commercial tax base. North Castle has done phenomenal commercial planning, and they have managed to keep their taxes down, which is a trade-off. This is the last piece of commercial property and it is a very unique piece of property strategically located near the high school, near the highway, and Route 117.” Emphasis supplied, see Minutes of that 2006 Town Board meeting.
Mr. Felix Charney of Summit Greenfield was in the audience, and he responded that if the Town wanted commercial, then Summit Greenfield would do commercial. He knew how to do commercial, he said. The Town Board made itself extremely clear that a rezoning to remove such a huge portion of our commercial base was unacceptable.
Fast forward to October 6, 2009, and I, now Supervisor, noted the Planning Board was concerned with the demolition of Building 600, and there was discussion with Summit Greenfield about not demolishing Building 600, and instead getting commercial rental income from the building. Planning Board Chair Susan Carpenter indicated a preference for avoiding all the environmental impacts of demolition.
When Summit Greenfield returned with their Draft FEIS in July 2010, they touted that fact that it preserved the 600 building, saying that “the modified project, with its increased commercial space, … responds effectively to community and Town Board concerns….” Executive Summary, Page I-2.That assertion was repeated in the October 2010 draft FEIS. See the Executive Summary, Page I-2.
There was never any confusion or doubt on the part of either the Town Board or Summit Greenfield that the commercial base of the Town was of paramount importance. Any reference to “fiasco” indicates at best a complete disconnect between the events and the eventual outcome of the detailed and procedurally correct review, and at worst an irresponsible pandering for votes with untruths that can only undermine the Town’s currently excellent position in Summit Greenfield’s lawsuit against the Town.
In addition, will someone who talks of Summit Greenfield’s supposed right to “better treatment, ” please explain to me all the talk about not permitting landlords or tenants to let or sublet their commercial property at the highest rents they can obtain? Do these fans of Summit Greenfield intend to establish commercial rent control in the hamlets? Are they seriously going to tell D’Agostino’s that it must accept less rent per square foot in rental from a grocery store than it can get from a drug store? Because that is what every commercial real estate broker will tell you. Drugstores pay more per square foot than grocery stores. Period. And do those individuals know that without Albany’s permission (called enabling legislation), no town has the authority to impose rent restrictions or to give real estate tax abatements anyway? Do those individuals understand the issue of property rights? Do they want the Town to be sued left and right for inconsistent policies?
I am not running for office, but I have worked diligently with the entire Town Board for the past four years to have a progressive government, one of fairness, encouraging local businesses wherever and whenever the Town had the authority to do so. The entire parking lot behind Bank of America has been renovated with 18 additional spaces; the long-term bridge project will be ended for all intents and purposes on November 23 – just a few weeks away – and with it goes the traffic jams and parking issues in the train station lot that have frustrated many. But in its wake we will have a brand-new expanse, with no more of the rust leakage, crumbling roadbeds and structural insecurity we had as late as 2007, but in fact a structure enhancing our hamlet’s aesthetics. We anticipate shopping will be renewed at an accelerated pace in time for the holidays.
We have been fiscally responsible in the most challenging financial three years since the Great Depression, and the projected tax increase for the average New Castle residence of $49 for the year 2012 is responsible and respectful of the hardships we know our residents face. For three years straight an average tax increase of less than $50 a year, when pensions and health insurance have outstripped inflation, and our revenues have eroded dramatically, is something we would hope the Town’s residents would recognize as our dedication to preserving the value of their most important investment, their homes.
Given all of the above, I respectfully request that the residents review the past accomplishments and vote to continue the policies of fiscal responsibility, hamlet streetscape enhancements, open and non-partisan government—even Assemblyman Robert Castelli said just a few weeks ago on camera that our Town Board serves its Town residents in the most responsible, apolitical way—that has served this Town so dedicatedly, and whose current candidates are committed to continue to do so—Carpenter, Mottel, and Chapin for Supervisor and Town Board, and Kraus and Zuckerman for Town Justices.
Thank You Barbara,
Thank you for this clear, thorough and ACCURATE account . You have tirelessly and often thanklessly served the Town during an immensely difficult period our Town’s history.
Your work has accomplished much and it has laid the groundwork for us to move forward on sure and legal footing. Your interests and your work were always what would be best for the Town.
You did the Town proud AND the bridge looks beautiful !!
Let me get this straight. The lame-duck Supervisor steps into an election discussion in which she is not running for office by talking about her non-partisan government while in the same sentence (last paragraph above) she, in a partisan way, suggests voting for only her party’s candidates? Nice touch. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
So where is New Castle on this eve before election? We have the democrats scrambling, playing machine politics trotting out the local party leader to defend their party’s candidates. They are so used to just winning in a walk that with viable competition, they panic and try to attack and/or defend a non-defensible record of inaction and ineffectiveness.
You have the republicans, so excited about having an actual chance to reclaim one or more town board seats they have lost sight of their own message and started attacking without regard for the facts. Both parties have turned a local election that should be cordial and based on facts and issues into a larger political battlefield where the voters are left scratching their heads.
Then, you have the one true independent of party candidates flip-flopping on his condemnation of the democrats then two emails later support of them. For a guy who claims an independent voice, it seems like a tactical error to get down and dirty with the other partisans. In what seems like a last minute hail mary he re-associates himself with the democrats claiming lifelong membership in the party, hoping that their large registered advantage will help him. All this after he said he supported running without party affiliation for all candidates.
What a mess. We as voters have all lost. Amirite?
@by so very disappointed,
You are wrong. If you want to be disappointed reread your post for all it’s baloney.
TO “So Very Disappointed”
Is it possible that someone could enter an election without knowing which candidate(s) they will support? Is it possible that someone decides based on the issues, and positions of the candidates? I have not flip-flopped. The Republicans lost any chance of my support based on their positions re: the ward system, sewers and, most importantly, Chappaqua Crossing. I am not getting “down and dirty with the other partisans”. I am merely giving praise where praise is due. And it was the unwarranted criticism from the Republicans that prompted that praise.
Does Barbara Gerrard defend spending $180k on the Gazebo too?
@ “So Very Disappointed”
No, you are not right. You sound like one of the Republican campaigners!
I too would like to know how we spent $180k on a gazebo that cost $35k and was delivered and assembled by the manufacturer. The new gazebo was built on almost the exact location as the old one. Other than site work (concrete footings, drainage, etc) and some landscaping where did the money go. While we are at it I would like to know why the 120 Bridge has taken over 3 years to complete and why the parking lot in town (befind B of A and in font of Bell) took so many years to repair. I keep reading these self congratulatory letters by the Democrats and this mutual admiration society they have going and yet nobody in office will offer explanations or take responsibility.
This town is clearly losing its quality of life and falling behind neighboring communities.
Combined with sky high taxes, we canbe certain this will impact propertly values.
Whether it is Chappaqua Crossing, The bridge project, the regular flooding, the supermarket, the roads, the deteriorating downtown, the poor condition of our athletic fields…the list goes on and on. I know Chappaqua can do better. Other neighboring communities certainly do.
Im not saying this is any one persons fault but without question I think its time for some new blood in town hall.
We should be thankful we have a choice for the first time in many years.
Get out & Vote!
I am not gonna defend the cost of the Gazebo. But, I think the real problem with $180K price tag (assuming it’s accurate) is that we never use it. I think the trick now is to figure out how to get more use out of it. Here’s my suggestion…..........build a walking bridge from the train station parking lot to the Gazebo (yes, it would cover over the stream). Move the right field home run fence 10 feet in to create more space around the Gazebo. Build a small, charming refreshment stand, and rent it to a willing vendor who will sell drinks & snacks (including ice cream). It could be a really nice place for families to gather in the spring, summer & fall as they watch sporting activities, or (kid) concerts/games, on the rec field. As far as sporting activities, there should be more night-time sporting activties on the rec field. For example, every kid who plays baseball should have the opportunity to play a game under the lights.
@Rob Greenstein, Thank you for your response, but my point about you was more: why endorse or comment on anyone else’s candidacy? Why not stay above the bs partisan fray, a fray you yourself have said many times is unnecessary in local elections, and ignore the other candidates while running on your own record and your own vision? It wasn’t that you changed your mind wrt to Elise Mottel. If you changed your mind about her during the last few months, which is fine, why shouldn’t I think you could change your mind about her again in the next few months? Don’t panic, stay on point.
@Jeffrey G., I wrote this on a Monday morning so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that I may have been tired and written, in your word, “baloney”. I reread what I wrote. I stand by my words. Here are more of them:
We as NC voters are losers by this year’s election process. Here we are for the 1st time being given real choice about for whom to vote and about changing the system to maybe or maybe not benefit the community. What we got in the weeks leading up to tomorrow’s vote is not change, but a return to 1960’s Chicago style politics. We have the democrats picking their candidates including not selecting an incumbent democrat to run on their ticket based on well, excuse the pun, politics. It is machine politics deja vu. Rather than show leadership and vision, they send out the party flacks to attack the opponents.
You have the republicans handed an opening by circumstances of actually offering a choice and maybe winning a seat or two in Town. They take that opening and run a smear campaign worthy of well, again excuse me, their opponents. They all play loose with the facts and instead of offering real vision, not slogans, but a vision of where this Town should be going, what should be our priorities both economically and socially, they end up writing tens of letters to local papers decrying each other.
I am right. Sorry if the truth hurts. Peace and love to all.
To So Very Disappointed,
I am not panicking, at all. In fact, if anything, I am not being very smart from a political point of view. From a political point of view, I should just keep my mouth shut, and let my opponents beat each other up. And I certainly shouldn’t be picking sides since I risk alienating some voters.
BUT, I’m not only running as an independent candidate, but also an independent voice. I will remain an independent voice if I’m elected. I will be an equal opportunity criticizer & praise-er. In order to maintain credibility, I must be both. Plus, it’s the right way to be.
If the Republicans ran on a pro-business platform – without pandering to the West End with the ward, without pandering to Millwood with the sewers & without calling Chappaqua Crossing a fiasco – I would very well have a different opinion right now. For me, the thing that put me over the edge was Chappaqua Crossing.
So Very Disappointed,
Yes, we most certainly are given a real choice here. The Republicans who have chosen to spin.. in the spirit of your ” peace and love” I will leave it at that, and ALL of the other candidates have been honest and kept to the high road. Rob Greenstein and the Democrats who are running have not played fast and loose with the facts. That is the “baloney” of your comment.
I do agree that we voters lose because of the smear campaign that the Republicans have been running. Fortunately, I believe that all of the other candidates running would serve the Town well.
I do not know why Mr. Wolfensohn was not selected for the Democratic ticket. I too felt that his exclusion was not well handled even tho I would not have voted to reelect him. He could have run as an Independent.
No Rob the problem is the cost of the gazebo and accountability to the taxpayer? The new gazebo was purchased ,delivered, and installed for $35 thousand. Total cost was close to $180k. It’s in the same location as the old gazebo so no expensive planning or architecture fees were required. Only grading of area, footings, drainage, and landscaping. Maybe you think usage is more important than cost but I think the tax payer was ripped off. Most outrageous is that the original budget request was for $500k! So where did approx $140k go?who puts a $180k gazebo on top of the street?
As far as usage is concerned, the town workers and rec department personnel regularly dine in the gazebo. Find out who was in charge of this fiasco and who was in charge of the project -connect the dots
Editor’s Note: Read up!
http://www.newcastlenow.org/index.php/article/index/new_replacement_gazebo_up_illuminated_and_under_budget
Most of the people posting on NewCastlenow, or running for an elected position, have never had to get anything accomplished within the four walls of New Castle. Putting CC aside, have you ever tried to open up a business in New Castle (become a tenant), have you ever tried to expand your house, legalize a finished off basement? Have you ever tried to change the “USE” of your building? Change a driveway, build a deck, patio, porch? Have you ever tried to install a POOL!! Aside from walking into Town Hall to pay for a parking ticket, or your Taxes; have you ever experienced how New Castle truly operates? North Castle use to operate the same way, until they felt the pain, now, it is a pleasure to get things DONE in North Castle! It truly is amazing how RED TAPE goes away during difficult times! The agenda is set at the top and it trickles down to all Town employees! Even ex-Town employees will tell you that the Town got drunk over RED TAPE, fee’s, and POWER. Are you kidding, more of the same: HOPE NOT! ROCK THE BOAT!!!! Can’t we get builders to come back and buy our homes and expand and renovate them, or divide that piece of property off and build a smaller home for profit or retirement? Town Hall needs to change its ways; who can do IT!!!!!!!! We need a different path of thinking!!
Barbara, with all due respect, you are being evasive to our point. All we said was lifting the commercial tenant restriction should have happened years ago, not this Spring. It took far too long regardless of the FEIS process. The fact that there is more than 600-thousand square feet of available prime unoccupied commercial space at Chappaqua Crossing, the fact that the town is losing millions of tax dollars and continues to fight a lawsuit against it, yes, it can be characterized as a “fiasco” a.k.a. a “failure” a.k.a. “a non performance of something.” Whoever is to blame is being debated on both sides. Since the case is in litigation, we’ll have to wait to see what is decided. As for D’Agostino’s, it’s a big disappointment to see it close for many residents. I’ve spoken to my neighbor Nick D’Agostino so I am aware of the situation. Village Market is a wonderful store I frequent almost every day, but they can’t be expected to carry a lot of other things residents need so yes, we need to find another store. In fact, we need to work to attract business and be partners with business. We want to work with Larry Gottlieb at the County’s Economic Development Office, we want to work with Assemblyman Bob Castelli and County Executive Rob Astorino who have both endorsed our ticket. We also want to work with the State’s local regional councils especially Marsha Gordon CEO of the Business Council of Westchester to explore economic development opportunities.
The Examioner characterized Kirkwood’s critique of the Board’s handling of CC as “spot on.” Its hard to disagree with that analysis. Although you can spin any situation, as Ms. Gerrard is trying to do, it speaks volumes that the Town is in federal Court litigation with its largest taxpayer. That is just not supposed to happen and its surely something the devoloper didn’t want to do but felt it had to because of the manner the manner in which Ms. Gerrard dealt with them. Again, according to the Examiner, giving them mixed signals and then at the last minute in essence rejecting the proposal (Talk about pandering). To now say that the Town is in an excellent legal position shows that someone is in denial.
What a dissappointment - Same old, Same old in New Castle.
Disfunctional, incompetant town government. This town is really falling behind relative to our neighboring communities in so many ways. If the voters could not break one-party strong hold on town government this year, it is hard to be optimistic about our town’s future. Based on the track record of this group of leaders, it is very discouraging. Its a good thing the real estate market is frozen because otherwise there would be an exodus.
