Hal Samis
Hartsdale, NY 10530

Mr. Paul J. Feiner and Town Board Members
Town of Greenburgh
PO Box 205
Elmsford, NY 10523

January 22, 2001

Dear Town Board:

As indicated in person at the Town Meeting January 10, I am sufficiently provoked by the Board's decision to rush the Hillside Avenue purchase to take steps to seek to inform the Board that it is acting in undue haste and perhaps, not in the best interest of the Community which it serves. In my remarks at the meeting I told the Board that there are two types of reality -objective and subjective. That the Town may need to occupy more space can be labeled an objective reality. That the Town needs to do so, in such haste and under such dubious circumstances, is a subjective reality; that the Board has thus opened the door to suspicions of misdeeds by member(s) of the Board by ramming this down the throats of the Community is, at best, the signature of an autocratic and unresponsive Town Board with a private agenda. Furthermore, that the Board cannot take notes from public forums and therefore needs an unpaid community to formally communicate by mail is still another assumption by the Board that all will come to nothing if it reverses the roles and depends upon the town residents to carry the ball. Wrong. My hat is off to Ella Preiser who seemed to be besieged by the Board solely because she attends these meetings but does not supply them with written reports. That she appeared to have a greater knowledge than the Board was apparently the result of her own research and that the Town is unable to benefit more directly from her research seems to be a consequence of the Town Attorney's inability to take notes during Ms. Preiser's previous meetings participation. On the other hand, Ms Mancuso was not under the pressure of the Supervisor meeting his "goals", one such other being a new Town Hall/Library. So, here are my comments, research and opinions... written.

1. The communication process stinks on issues of major expenditures of money and the taking on of debt. To say that Legal Notice was published may be true but not really the means to notify the community. Whereas phone calls, like leaf pick-up, may indeed be too vigorous, the format of a dated letter to the community would be a preferred vehicle. Your undated letter, arriving on January 5 to inform of a special meeting to vote on an expenditure of "$20 million" however, lacks the timeliness that sensitive politicians, who are concerned not only with propriety but also with a true desire to inform and be informed by the public, would author. The lack of information regarding the purchase and the questions it in turn raises would seem to be the mechanism of a Board that has something to hide but nevertheless mailed a letter to protect themselves later in Court. Finally, the concept that information is posted on the web site means that first you have to be aware of the web site, where to go for information (other than the Feiner family photo album), and the number of hits to the site for all purposes does not suggest that since birth, the site is well attended. As for the local newspapers (which the Board is well aware) they do not really cover or promote Town or Planning Board meetings. The Journal News apparently does not cover the meetings, The Scarsdale Inquirer does but, being a weekly and Town meetings being scheduled on Wednesday nights, there is insufficient time for news to be published in that week's Friday paper. Finally, the New York Times Sunday Westchester edition is more of a cultural guide and less concerned with hard news. So with little media coverage, the Board can act with impunity.

2. That Mr. Feiner indicates that he may not vote for the proposal is a self serving gesture in that it is likely that he would not need do so knowing how the other Board member are voting. Thus, the measure can still pass and he will have been the "good guy " saving money while counseling caution and driving a late model car.

3. That Mr. Feiner would favor condemnation was possibly the fall back position if opposition were encountered. Consider that the seller will not lose but earn reasonable profit for his efforts should the condemnation process occur. Thus, everyone saves face and everyone gets what they want. Less profit if it can't be pushed through the Town Board, but still worth the effort because there is no downside due to condemnation.

4. The major flaw in the rush to buy the existing structure is that the Town does not fully know just what it will cost to develop the site, If the matter truly came before the Board only as recently as early December 2000, then, at that time of the decision scheduling a meeting to vote on the expenditure and to sign a contract of purchase, the Board had no current independent appraisal of the property (not that appraisals can't be Made As Instructed), no contracts out for bids to do the work. Thus the $20 million number is just a number and should bonds be sold for that amount, how will any overages be covered, not those borne by the contractor but from costs not anticipated. Suppose the work costs $16 million. Would some of the reasons for this new facility fall by the wayside? Would the Library, which has been conned by the Board into believing that they will get everything on their wish list, expect to see a full implementation should costs run higher than anticipated?

5. Does the Board have the authority, as was questioned at the Town Meeting, to authorize $20 million of bonds without submitting the proposal to a referendum? Should a referendum be enacted in any case?

6. Much has been made of the faults of the now apparently defunct Master Plan and Executive Summary for the redevelopment of the existing Town Hall and Library. This report which was completed last February was commissioned by the Town but is now deemed not serviceable because:

1. it won't meet the needs of the community in ten years because if the population grows continuously and at the current rates, government must grow similarly (Board's opinion, not mine).
2. it will cost more (one rough estimate versus another rougher estimate, the new package conveniently costs "less" than the Master Plan).
3. the Board, so far, is unable to estimate the income derived from taxes from a privately owned and developed Hillside Avenue and thus without that corresponding income stream, the long term benefits of not purchasing the property are not factored into the costs of the existing Master Plan whereas the cost of temporary accommodations, for example, is. This is called "stacking the deck".
4. the Library may not need additional space in ten years time as the usage of the computer and internet may forestall further commitments to hard copy reference works whereas video and audio downloads may eliminate the need for physical copies. This is conjectural but the idea is that estimating the Town's and the Library's needs further than 10 years out, if at all valid, it is not assured that the Hillside Avenue site would anticipate them. And, does the Library have to entirely shut down during renovation or could just certain areas be closed off at a time?
5. I am curious as to the necessity, if additional space is needed, why the only solution is to locate both the Library and the Town Hall at the same facility. Can't the Town Hall be in one location and the Library at another? On the other hand, the now defunct Master Plan states "The continued development of the existing site is more desirable than developing sites in other locations primarily for reasons of visibility and convenience. The present site has historically been the town center for over fifty years. It is also located at the most important intersection in the Town of Greenburgh."
6. The defunct plan included a parking garage (a cost in $) versus the new facility's outdoor spaces and jogging trail.
7. In the undated letter sent out in January, the letter has a section in bold face "In comparison, the new building:" and goes onto cite a number of items which if not in the existing Master Plan could certainly be annexed. However, I can't believe that the Master Plan didn't have "improved access for people with wheelchairs, on-site storage of tax records and historical data, is more energy efficient providing cost savings for heating and cooling, ensures safer access for pedestrians and drivers etc." In fact I believe that the comparison was with that of the existing facilities and not with the Master Plan of the immediately preceding paragraph. Re this I charge the Board with misdirection, leading letter readers to assume that the renovation of the existing facility would not cover these areas and thus only the new building would solve the problems.

7. Much has been intimated of how the new facility will not really cost $20 million because the old facilities will be sold, certain areas of the new facility can be rented etc. thereby reducing the original purchase/ construction price. OK.. so just how much will the old location bring to the Town's coffers. Will any zoning variances be necessary to achieve this figure? If so, what would be the nature of these variances? Could we be likely to see a Hotel going up on this now residentially zoned site? How long will this process take, bearing in mind, that when the town actually occupies Hillside Avenue is uncertain. And, just how much income is anticipated from being the landlord at Hillside Avenue. It would seem that in the world of bond financing with an anticipated sinking fund and/or call features, that precise figures based upon the above answers are required for these aspects in order to subscribe to a prescribed schedule: thus has the Board done due diligence and been assured so that on January 31 when it votes to purchase and to commit to $7.8 million by signing a contract (a lot to be on the hook for without background) and for the later issuance of some additional $12 million+++/- to complete the transaction.

8. Timing is everything. Certainly the Hillside Avenue eyesore has been around a long, long time. Now that the building was finally sold, (presumably closing December 1999 but the deed going unrecorded until Summer 2000 [until the recording, no one "knows" of the sale unless the buyer or seller tells them]; even press releases to the Real Estate community didn't go out until Fall 2000) the Town suddenly has a compelling reason to become interested in purchasing the facility for a mere $3 million profit to the seller. Furthermore it must do so in great haste because now that we face fears of a downturn in the economy, all the buyers that weren't there before will come knocking at the seller's door including several large publicly owned Real Estate Investment Trusts (already represented in the area) who apparently weren't interested at $4.8 million just a year ago. Maybe, everyone was sleeping. Maybe vacancy rates are lower now and thus the property is worth more. And, truthfully, I have nothing against someone collecting even an unreasonable profit. Yet I would not liken the purchase of this highly visible shell to purchasing a Leica at a garage sale which is sold several years later. If the building is completed at the suggested $20 million price or $150 a square foot, the Town may have indeed solved its expansion desire handily. However, given the natural tendency to distrust politicians (does the current scenario argue against this bias) would it not raise suspicions with the history of the Building, the rush to force the issue (having conveniently missed the November ballot but emerging at the year end holiday/vacation period, weather conditions not necessarily permitting), and so far the Board denying my request to postpone the vote from January 31 to April 30 to allow more time for investigation, obtaining answers and bending backwards to allay the worst fears of a suspicious constituent: all achievable without the presence of that "Damocles sword". Again, your construction of an escape clause (condemnation) is only the "straw man" defense. Condemnation and the locked in profit is again misdirection; you "want" the site to be purchased and thus you switch the focus from the sizeable expenditure discussion to refocus instead on whether to do it by contract of sale or by condemnation. Thus a win-win for profiting parties and, at cursory glance, you look like you are on the side of the angels. Alternatively, you may "save" the day and announce new negotiations to lower the price. "Golly, gee, it's really tough to negotiate without a checkbook in hand and all those real estate sharpies circling ready to swoop down and steal away this diamond in the rough."

9. With these speculations in mind, I call upon the Board to individually complete affidavits citing when they first learned of the availability of the Hillside Avenue property; whether, in the 12 month period prior to this notice each member, either individually or together, or their appointed representatives, met with the Seller and/or his or her appointed representatives and, if so, what was the agenda? (I'm sure the Board members keep diaries, if only to charge mileage). Furthermore, I would like to know if the Seller made any contributions, within the past two years, to the election campaigns or personal finances of any Board member? Yes, by not removing the likelihood of a vote on January 31, you have failed the Julius Caesar litmus test. Remember my caution about objective versus perceived reality. And, I do not like being played with by vague intimations that you may not vote for it which hides the possibility that your henchmen will. By the way, I would have never considered voting Republican before, but if you represent the Democratic Party, then I may have to surrender my liberal, college day leanings. Certainly the manner in which the letter is written to residents indicates that the purchase is a "done" deal. "We'd like to hear your comments on on the proposal. Please note any comments or suggested programs or other uses you would like to see in the new building..." Perhaps the Councilwomen who also signed the letter didn't really read or interpret the Letter. Our ex President also had a problem with word meanings and he like yourselves certainly had Counsel and advisors to assist with the language. Perhaps you should consider that in your great haste, you really need some more time to think the issue through and how to fairly present it to those whom you, presumably, were elected to "preserve and protect" since paraphrasing from New York City has been your hallmark elsewhere. Allowing that my geography is wrong and that Denmark is not an unincorporated village in Greenburgh, something certainly stinks.

Finally, as you observed that in small group discussion, hoping that the audience will get bored and angry at a speaker who monopolizes the time and causes the meeting to last longer, doesn't work when the audience is interested in what the speaker has to say. When the group is on the speaker's side and against you, they cannot be belittled or taken to task. If your position can only be supported by hopes that people just want to get home, then you will have come to the meeting unprepared. Needless to say, in your other preparations for the meeting, I hope that you bring pertinent files, appraisals etc. to the meeting because just as Town Hall has business hours, so do the citizens of the community have their own office hours, which are often identical to those of the Town. Furthermore as you are well aware, many of us work in Manhattan (otherwise why would you campaign at the train stations) and thus it would be impractical to go to Town Hall during the day. Thus, it would not out of line with Mr. Spano's concept of "participatory democracy" for the availability of files, letters etc. to be present at Town Meetings (before and during) so that participants in discussion will not be penalized by not having the same resources as the Board.

And, yes, amidst all of the above denigration and speculation re the Board's motives, there were some questions. I hope the Board has answers at the Wednesday Town Meeting to them. Otherwise, why call for a letter.

On the other hand, if you haven't previously considered the questions and find that you need more time to obtain answers, please don't hesitate to postpone the January 31 vote.

Hal Samis

Copies by fax to:
Lila Fagenson (Journal News)
David Gottlieb (Scarsdale Inquirer)
Westchester Section (New York Times)

Specific reference -- not "I was talking to a number of developers" or "it generally costs per square foot" (for a shell which has been undisturbed for years), but "John Smith of Acme Contracting Company said __________ "

a) Sell more bonds
b) Cut back on new facility features?
c) Steal the money from the operating budgets of the various town departments?

__________months after occupancy at the new location or approximately __________ months from the initial issuance of the bonds.

No, previously obtained permits are still valid
No, so far he has not filed (if this is the case, what does the Board think it means that he has done nothing in a year of ownership)?
No, he expects to sell the premises to a buyer.
No, he is waiting for the economy to look up and the White Plains metro area vacancy rate to ease further
Yes, he intends to start construction shortly after approvals.
Yes, he already has approvals and is waiting for warm weather.

Yes or No (if No, why not, if Yes wasn't it misleading in your letter which implied that only by purchase of the Hillside Avenue site could these benefits be achieved? Yes or No

This proposed purchase of Hillside Avenue was initiated by __________(a name) on or about __________ (date).

Was a cap on Spending to achieve this conclusion (if such mandate was obtained) ever discussed and/or voted upon?

We, the Board, agree that on "important" issues as defined by an agreed dollar amount or law changes which "materially" affect more than say, 50% of the population, we will convey the issues to the residents in a more timely manner; that such communication be by letter form in addition to the usual legal notice and web posting; that such communications shall bear a date and that such communications shall be timed to arrive at the resident's home address at least two weeks prior to the first Town Meeting at which the topic is to appear on that night's Agenda.

Yes (we believe in open government)
No (we believe in government cloaked in secrecy)

We, the Board, acknowledge that ANY discussion of choosing Condemnation versus Purchase is not necessarily to be construed by the Board as "de facto" approval by the Town residents. Furthermore, we offer as disclosure that the Seller, while not profiting to the extent of our proposed purchase offer, may still realize substantial profits under the Condemnation process.

Yes or No 

We, the Board, agree to postpone any vote on: either to purchase, initiate Condemnation proceedings or any mechanism for the raising of funds (bond sale, taxation, etc with regard to the acquisition a new or expanded Town Hall/Library) for a period of at least 90 days from tonight's meeting so that the Board will have the answers to all of the questions which were raised in this meeting period (to include this document) because we agree that this information (either at hand or presently lacking) is relevant to a sound decision.

Yes or No 

Finally, We, the Board, agree to end the practice of conferring in private prior to voting on issues at Town Board Meetings. Given that Town Meeting discussion is undertaken with the idea of enlightenment and participation; given that the Board can still arrange how to vote in advance of the meeting and given that the Board can still create pre-arranged signals prior to the actual vote; we find it is desirous that the "appearance" of being influenced by Public input at these meetings is vital to maintaining the respect of our constituents as well as receiving the benefit derived from their active participation in the process and thusly, our thought processes and decision making should not be hidden from this Public.

Yes (we are independent of each other and have nothing to hide)
No (we have a lot to hide)

Submitted this evening, January 25, 2001

Respectfully,

Hal Samis