WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. October 3, 2006: In a very rare occurence tonight, the Common Council took an item up for discussion on the consent agenda.
It was in the matter of the last-Thursday-evening-submitted Memorandum of Understanding on subdivision of New York Presbyterian Hospital property, the council was being asked to approve that the city may acquire a 5.5 acre park from the Hospital in exchange for subdividing a 60-acre adjacent parcel for 125 homes (down 6 units from as first reported based on last week's MOU information).
The Council soundly bounced the Memorandum back to the Mayor as being too vague, laying the city open to unknown expenses. This, after they had no particularly objections to the concept in the work session. However, five of the six councilpersons found plenty to disagree with in the fine print. Glen Hockley was the only individual in support of the proposal, however, he did vote in favor of tabling the matter.
The rejection of the MOU (as it is anacronymically referred) in its present form was spearheaded by the instant research of Councilman Dennis Power, which he apparently conducted since last Thursday evening when he received the MOU. Power read a listing of careful technical questions he raised over 40 minutes of sustained questioning of the Commissioner of Planning Susan Habel about the Memorandum of Understanding over fees due in the subdividing process, and the question of what would the hospital do the the rest of its land. (Habel said the hospital would follow its Master Plan, but knew of no indications of any hospital projects for "the rest of the property".) Habel insisted the MOA was simply to acquire parkland for the city and nothing else. Mayor Delfino assured the television audience that the hospital has "no plan" to execute a subdivision "at the present time."
Councilpersons Thomas Roach (complaining about the vagueness of what happens if the hospital walks away from the deal and whether the proton accelerator project still remains alive in that event), Rita Malmud (Council authority to approve the budget) and Benjamin Boykin (demanding a specific budget analysis before approval), and Councilman Arnold Bernstein (preferring to see a larger park parcel) all agreeing tabled the Memorandum until the Regular Common Council meeting of November 6, 2006. Prior to that the council is to meet to discuss rewording of the MOU with the Corporation Counsel, and the Planning Commissioner.
The document, Edward Dunphy, the Corporation Counsel, said appeared to be headed for substantial revision. Councilpersons statements were greeted with applause from the handful of citizens who were invited to speak about the Memorandum of Understanding even though it was a consent agenda item and was not in a public hearing mode.
Six citizens spoke, denouncing the MOU. Harriet Baker described it as "an insult." Lynn Huber, Treasurer of Concerned Citizens for Open Space ridiculed the statements that the 5.5 acres would be preserved in perpetuity, noting that the 60 acres if turned into 131 homes would "be destroyed in perpetuity." Dan Seidel castigated the Memorandum of Understanding on grounds that the city should not be doing it, when there was so much else to do. Marc Pollitzer expressed budget concerns, said the School District Capital Project Committee should have been informed of this city intention to subdivide on the basis of any subdivision impact on school district enrollment.
