WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MRS. WHITE PLAIN VOICE. December 12, 2005: A reader continues defense of the decision not to refer out the New York Presbyterian Hospital plan in 2000.
Dear John-
Once again I feel the need to respond to your misguided interpretation of events surrounding the referral rejected by our Common Council several years ago.
(More)
In response to your points-
1. Not gaining "one foot of parkland" might very well have kept the hospital from devouring and paving much of the pristine acreage.
2. The City lost nothing in rejecting the referral. As former Mayor Delvecchio chose not to refer an earlier ridiculous proposal, so did our Common Council. Subsequent proposals are considered on an individual basis and referred when the Council thinks it appropriate.
3. The hospital can sell at $1 Million an acre only if it is commercially rezoned. Residential property does NOT sell at that rate in WP.
4. Your legal interpretation of residential vs downtown commercialan "spot zoning" is highly questionable.
Your suggestion that "changes of landscape" make new referrals more onerous is without substantiation. Moreover, to declare that the Council "sold out" the people of WP borders on libe.
Regards,
Marc Pollitzer
THE CITIZENETREPORTER REPLIES:
I love a great dialogue!
Let's get into your rationalizations a little deeper:
1. It is only a matter of time before the North Street Community puts up its senior condominiums on the St. Agnes Property, beginning the concreting of the rest of the hospital property should some developer come on in and purchase it and ask for a Special Permit -- perhaps for more senior condo housing -- just a thought.
However, had the 2000 proposal been referred out and refined in the process, the acreage that the NYPH was going to give as part of that deal could have been "saved" by now had that original process been at least referred out. We'd have a nice little boutique mall behind Bloomies -- and no imminent threat of condos, secret laboratories, and traffic producing clinics, or no threat of marble-faced towers marching up the north side of the property or the south side of the property.
2. The decision not to refer out was further aggravated when the council did not stick the lawsuit out to the bitter end.
When the Council was acquainted in Executive Session by Hospital representatives with the amount of damages the hospital was going to go after, the Council lost their appetite for fighting for the right not to refer; they caved; they lost their nerve and settled the Article 78 suit by agreeing to refer out the proton accelerator plan.
Had they continued on with the suit -- well they might have set legal precedence that would give cities the right in law not to refer projects for review on merit. But the council did not. That's where the mistake came in that compounded the feloney of refusal to refer.
3. Let's face facts on this myth that residential is not attractive: that is a sweet little piece of property to a residential developer -- ($5 Million homes in a development called The Woods at White Plains) (Or think condos in the sky -- which are residential).
It is puzzling to me why you continue to defend the dumbest decision of the new century, which was lobbied for by persons who were friends of the council who lead them down the primrose lane of irrationality. Time has proven them like, so wrong.
As far as the Comprehensive Plan defense goes, a posh little mall behind Bloomingdale's on the ugliest section of the hospital property, hardly qualified as offensive, and you would have gotten the land for free. The council had to explore that possibility for the benefit of the entire city. They did not.
4. On spot zoning, it is not questionable at all. The city "adjusted" the zoning in the downtown in at least three instances to begin the Renaissance, and there are probably more:
A. The raising of height of the buildings in City Center (28 to 34) being the number one spot zone.
B. The transfer of air rights legislation (a completely new and city-created initiative) that allowed development parameters to be transferred to adjacent properties (applicable throughout the downtown between adjacent properties) which enabled the creation of the 221 Main project in its present form.
C. The elevation of the 221 Main condos to 40 stories.
5. On the matter of changes of landscape: Can you really make a case that the possibility of the city preserving the most park-friendly property on the New York Presbyterian Property is better now since that park proposal for retail zoning was not referred out in 2000? I do not think you can. Tell you why:
A. The land now is worth more. The hospital is never going to give that away now. They'd have to be fools to lease that away in return for medical commercial zoning as they talked about in the past with the Mayor two years ago. They still might, but I cannot see it. It's dumb.
B. The east side of town has more upscale retail alongside Bloomingdale Road, making the property on NYPH quite attractive as residential upscale housing -- either single family -- or a series of stepping up tall buildings rising like Easter Island statues up the slope -- or series of homes down Bryant Avenue. It's just a matter of time. Think a series of tall buildings called "The Hill at White Plains."
The only ways I see the city getting the Bryant Avenue piece as a park (the most buildable land), is
A. A deal to develop the North Side of the property densely with a developer buying the whole swath of property and giving a portion of it to the city in return for the rights to build whatever they want, such as a wraparound phalanx of 35 story or higher exclusive apartments, around that north end (doing away with the golf course).
Remember, as we have learned quite revealingly from the Bar Building fracas, National Historic Properties may be torn down if the owner wants to do so.
B. The County, the Trust for Public Land buys the whole kit and kaboodle for $100 Million or more. (And read MORE) Then the city and the county need to find added millions to create the park and maintain it every year. This actually has some merit since County Executive Spano has been collecting open space for the County. The big hitching point is the money.
Those two scenarios...barring continued medical development which seems out of the question at this point (hundreds of millions needed) due to the state's choosing to prop up the medical center in Valhalla...are the legacy of that Council 2000 decision -- done simply to heed the voices of the few.
6. Nothing libelous about the words "sold out" -- the council was not thinking of the full benefit of the majority of the city in that decision and were listening to a minority of voices, which is the definition of a sell-out.
But, perhaps you are right...I should probably should not have said it was a "sell-out," what it really was was a "giveaway." They gave away a park, without defining the deal.
While I have the benefit of hindsight in this analysis, I was also of this opinion at the time of the decision. As that disaster of a decision continues to loom, I hope sincerely you are right that the park can somehow be saved.
It will take some benefactor of a developer to get us that park. The park will come at a very costly price to the city's environment. We may end up getting a a park plus development (a lot of it). That will be the legacy of the Common Council of 2000.
