Even worse than we thought

This week we heard a discussion of Governor Kathy Hochul’s housing proposal when Nassau County Legislator Laura Schaefer spoke at the Rotary Club meeting on Tuesday.

Before the talk, we had understood that the proposal could mean that some high density housing might be built, which wouldn’t be great for the suburbs. But it is so much worse than that.

Under the plan, which is a part of the New York State budget, if a municipality didn’t meet a 3% housing growth rate, the state would be able to override local zoning laws near railroad stations. (For Garden City, that would be about 230 additional housing units.)

It turns out that most of Garden City is within a half mile of at least one LIRR station.

So, does that mean that new developments might be fast tracked by the state, against the residents’ wishes? Yes, it does.

But it also means that if a developer wanted to buy up some existing homes and replace them with an apartment building, that could also be forcibly approved by the state. Or if your neighbor wanted to convert his home into a two or three family home - also could be forced. And there would be no environmental review (SEQRA) process.

If you think this couldn’t happen here, there are some folks in Queens who would like a word.

A park at St. Paul’s

To the Editor:

Last week there were three letters addressing the perceived shortcomings of the now defunct Committee on St Pauls’ overall presentations. While I generally agree with these criticisms (c’est la vie, c’est la guerre) it is time to dwell on the present with an eye on the future. I do think the potential option of demolition needs further analysis. Why?

The Committee’s demolition/park concept was described as yielding a costly “Disney style” park. But the elements/features comprising the purported $15m park were not specified except to include some sort of a pond. Whether a roller coast, ferris wheel or Space Mountain ride was contemplated is speculative at this point.

In addition, the Westerman presentation ginned up the cost of demolition by advising that historic salvage items be treated to a 5 year free vacation in Arizona. (We residents should be so lucky as to get this trip). This “guess what kind of amusement park, send the salvage on a trip” approach was never envisioned by FDEM of which I was a member last year. Instead, please consider brick (sourced from the building) paths, benches, a fountain, a garden, maybe a pond and/or a bandshell, an area for board games, pickle ball, shuffleboard and the like? Perhaps a small respite center perhaps constructed from bricks from the building, field tents for special one day events or meetings? Yes, and illuminate the park when needed using solar power lighting. Enjoy elegant simplicity!

To be fair the Committee’s skewed choice approach also pertained to facade because only the most costly facade concepts were truly examined based up the Committee’s Town Hall handout. A facade with a dome (size undetermined) housing a moderate sports field and a theatre convertible to space for meetings suggestion was previously mentioned but never costed at all.

Everyone knows the Board has a fiduciary duty to manage the entire 48 acre St Paul’s property as a Village asset. Through this prism it would appear that simply looking at demolition itself as an end result (as some have suggested) would seem shortsighted. How many residents want a flat, sea of grass as an end result or as a temporary, illusory fix thereby creating a potential existential crisis? Demolition is a really a step towards a solution. Getting real, a park is a final but mutable choice ( flexibility to evolve and change incrementally) and is a true solution at a reasonable cost to be achieved more rapidly and with more confident certainty than other options would afford.

Hopefully the Board will entertain procuring complete, specific costs for a park concept and maybe for reasonable facade idea as well. Perhaps these can be discussed at the Westerman work session meeting which our new Mayor stated will occur?

S. G. Gorray

One estimator is insufficient

To the Editor:

For many Village purchases, GC is required to obtain competitive bids from vendors. Some of these are for only a few thousand dollars and still must be approved by our Board of Trustees. This makes sense for cost and quality reasons. We all practice this policy in our needs for professional services for our homes.

Yet in the process of obtaining bids for the costs of dealing with the St Paul’s challenge, today we have estimates from only one estimator: The Westerman Construction Company. They were selected after an RFP (request for proposals) seeking companies interested in our project. Most candidates, 70%, GC invited to bid declined to do the work and Westerman was selected partially because their fee of $69,000 was the lowest. Also Westerman was known to the Board. Perhaps Mayor Veniziale, an experienced architect, convinced

See page 39