$11 Million Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Village

By Amy Edel

The dispute between Garden City Center Associates, a subsidiary of the Albanese Organizations, has escalated to an $11 million lawsuit that was filed last week. On June 13,1997 the Garden City Center Associates served a notice of claim on the Village, threatening to sue the Village for damages unless they received a settlement.

The company claimed that they were entitled to compensation because the Village had refused to purchase 114 Tenth Street and 116 Eleventh Street, which the company wanted the Village to convert into additional municipal parking for parking lot 10.

The claim stated that the damages resulted from "the deprivation of claimant's constitutionally protected property interest" by six of the eight trustees in office at the time of the March 20,1997 vote at which time the Village decided not to acquire those properties. The claim states that the Village acted "under color of law" and "arbitrarily, capriciously and without any legal justification, refused to acquire the houses." The Village's decision came after significant protest by residents of the Village in a heated controversy dubbed "The Houses for Parking Debate."

After the notice of claim was served a settlement was not reached, and the Garden City Center Associates filed papers for this lawsuit at Federal District Court in Uniondale. In a statement released last week, Anthony A. Albanese, general partner of Garden City Center Associates, said, "The Village made a clear commitment to us to create this much-needed parking when it issued building permits for our buildings in the 1970s. The Village plainly and illegally reneged on that commitment." He stated that, "We took this action reluctantly because we have always been good citizens of the Village and we sincerely believe that the Village's parking plan should be completed to maintain the first-class status of the area's office buildings. The full occupancy of Franklin Avenue's office buildings by top notch tenants is absolutely essential to the Village's goal of attracting first-class retailers to the area."

Albanese also claimed, "Incredibly, the trustees ignored a January 1997 report by the Village's Business Planning Coalition that, after an 18-month study, urged the trustees to complete the parking plan to help spark the revitalization of the Franklin Avenue Business District. The Coalition's report, as well as every previous parking study undertaken by the Village, confirmed that Parking Field 10 has less than 50 percent of the parking spaces required by the Village code. The Trustees also ignored the positive recommendation of two property owners' associations representing more than 60 percent of the Village's homeowners."

Albanese concluded, "What is more important, we feel we have been illegally discriminated against. As the Village's parking plan requires, nine of the eleven properties earmarked to be bought for parking were purchased when offered to the Village. We and the previous owners of our properties paid benefit assessments for parking plan improvements that did not provide parking for our buildings. The last benefit assessment was imposed on us as recently as last year. The only two offered properties the Village has failed to buy are the ones that would provide parking for our buildings. Why are we being treated differently from all other owners whose buildings benefit from the Village's provision of safe and convenient parking? We really had no choice in the matter. We have a fiduciary responsibility to Garden City Center Associates to protect its interests and financial viability. We remain willing to discuss with the Village any reasonable solution to the disastrous impact inadequate parking has on our properties and on other Franklin Avenue businesses."

Albanese also cited a study by the Central Property Owners' Association which allegedly shows that between 1989 and 1996 the share of property taxes paid by businesses had fallen from 41.44 percent to 35.83 percent to demonstrate his belief that if the trend continues, by 2010 the share paid by businesses would be only 24 percent.

This issue has been one that has polarized residents. The Millers, specifically mentioned in the June 1997 notice of claim, and the numerous residents who supported them, argued that losing homes for parking would be wrong for the Village and would adversely affect not only themselves and the other residents living next to or near the properties in question, but would be diminish the quality of the Village as a whole as green space and if homes were lost to black-top. The business owners and their supporters seeking the homes-to-parking conversion have argued that customers and clients will not cross Franklin Avenue and need more spaces to park behind the building in lot 10. One resident, surprised to hear the news of the lawsuit commented, "But I thought the Albanese and the Village were working together now with Renaissance to revitalize the Village. How can they work together if they sue the Village for $11 million?" This question remains to be answered, but many hope that the Village, residents, and Garden City Center Associates can reach an agreement which will allow the relationship between the Albaneses and the Village to continue to benefit the revitalization movement.