The village parking situation and the so-called "Houses for Parking" issue reared its head again at the most recent Garden City Board of Trustees meeting where the public questioned if the board would develop a timeline giving people notice as to when a decision would be made with regard to the parking study and residents of the homes and near the houses slated to be turned into parking lots asked the trustees to remember that families would be affected by their decision. The Garden City Chamber of Commerce asked the board to remember that there is a parking shortage, which they say is affecting the occupation of businesses in the community, thus pushing the burden of village taxes onto single family homes.

Mayor Harold Hecken thanked the various property owners' associations, the chamber of commerce, and individuals who submitted written responses to the Planning Commission's Parking Study and explained that as of yet the board has not had time to consider it, but appreciated the input of the concerned parties. Hecken said that the board had no plan to make a decision that evening, at which point trustee Bruce Torino questioned whether the board's decision about village parking would be an agenda item. Hecken said that he believes that it will be announced but if real estate issues are involved they must be dealt with in an executive session. He added that if, rather than the acquisition of a home, the discussion centers on the re-striping of parking lots, that will be an item on the traffic commission's agenda.

Deputy Mayor Robert Lewis, who is slated to become mayor in April, expressed his concern that no timeline for a decision has been agreed upon. He said he wants to have some sort of schedule so that those concerned will know when they can voice their opinions and when a final decision will be made.

Peter Negri, president of the Central Property Owners' Association, who is slated to replace Torino on the village board in April, questioned whether or not it was the intention of the board to hold a public forum or if the board intended to make a decision without letting the public be heard. He also questioned the mayor's use of the term, "matters of real estate" and whether that meant that anything about acquiring homes would be dealt with in an executive session. Hecken noted that whether or not they would agree to using properties where homes are currently located for parking lots would most likely be done in a public session, but explained that the issue of which properties they might acquire and how much they would pay for that property would have to be dealt with in executive session.

The board, though making it clear that no decision would be made that evening, were not able to come to a consensus of whether or not it would be an agenda item when they do make a decision and did not agree upon a public forum as of yet. Torino joked, "We have decided we have not decided to decide but when we decide what we want to decide you will be told in advance when we make a decision."

Negri stated, "After all this time and effort and study and consulting and so forth that has gone into this issue it's far too important to too many people to even hint that anything might be done without giving the public full opportunity to be heard and express themselves."

Following Negri's questions and statements, John McKay, chairman of the CPOA's parking subcommittee then asked for a date certain for a public hearing. "I noticed in our agenda, just tonight, that we can fix a date for a public hearing for a local law but can we fix a date for a public hearing for something that is as emotional as this issue is, as important to our CPOA as this is? I don't understand quite why we continue not to be able to give that date." Referring to the standing room only crowd at the January meeting of the board, McKay said, "This example here tonight only represents a miniscule amount of people I could produce to oppose any acquisition of property for parking so I would just ask the modicum of the gentlemen's agreement that the village represents itself on, to give us the opportunity for that public forum. Set a date, make it April 1, June 1, but give us that opportunity and that consideration."

Deborah Kanner-Sandler, a member of the family living at 115 10th St., whose home has been recommended for destruction to supply village parking, referred to her family as "the true victims of this issue." Explaining that her family, once every year or two her family comes forth to once again beg for the preservation of their home and property, Kanner-Sandler noted that it has been a while since she was last before the board and some new representatives have joined the board since the last time she addressed them. "Fact one," said Kanner-Sandler, "The Kanner home is still not for sale. If there should come a time when we do wish to sell, we would hope that it would be to a family who would love and appreciate that home as much as we do. We would hope to assure that family that their new home is not in danger of being destroyed."

Kanner-Sandler then went on to oppose the idea of moving her family home to the next lot over, which is already owned by the Albanese Development Corporation who have been among the strongest supporters of what is known as the village's Park Buffer Strip Plan, where houses would be removed for parking and then a 50 ft. buffer of parkland would be put in place to separate it from the next home over. The movement of the Kanner home is something that has been raised as a solution for people who are against destroying a house in order to provide parking. "Mrs. Kanner could never go through that and I must add, the mere suggestion that an 82-year-old woman uproot her life and suffer the hardship of having her home picked up and shoved next door for the convenience of everyone else is an utter disgrace," said Kanner-Sandler. "This issue is not just about parking and houses, it is not about mere lot numbers on a grid map. This issue is about homes and the human lives, the families who live in those homes. It's about particular families being targeted as necessary casualties. It's about a village, which, even after all this time cannot seem to choose between two startlingly different philosophies."

Discussing these two philosophies, Kanner-Sandler stated, "On the one hand there's the attitude which says it's okay to be unfair to a small group of people just so long as it benefits a larger group. A few can be sacrificed for the good of the village. As a precedent at its worst, this is an old and terrifying and dangerous position. On the other hand, there is the attitude which recognizes and protects the dignity, the worth, the human rights of each and every individual living here, the one that says we are all of equal and immeasurable value and that no one, not one of us, is disposable."

According to Kanner-Sandler, the character of the village depends upon which of the philosophies the board decides upon. Noting that her late father called their family "the sacrificial lamb," Kanner-Sandler stated, "The Kanner family may well be worn down, but don't count us out yet. We still hope to ensure for the Kanners and every other family in this village that their homes , lives, families, security, and peace of mind will not be sacrificed at the altar of business. We can work with our business community. We always have in this village. We can make small sacrifices in many ways but we should not have to sacrifice homes and families, that is asking too much." The conclusion of Kanner-Sandler's speech was met by a standing ovation by the majority of those at the meeting.

John Donachie, a resident of 6th St., near another of the homes that has been suggested for a parking lot, questioned the fact that many of the quality of life considerations given by the parking consultant hired by the village were not included in the Planning Commission's Parking Study. He then asked the board to consider those options presented by the consultant. The mayor noted that many of the board members had also questioned why there were omissions in the planning commission's report.

Susan Williams Furey, another resident of one of the homes targeted to be torn down, noted that she could not speak any more eloquently than her neighbor, but wanted to ask the board to hold a public forum and not say that this meeting was their forum. She noted that when they met with the parking consultant the residents did not realize that it would be the public's only forum to address the parking situation and thought they would have further opportunity to comment after the planning commission submitted their report.

Dennis Armstrong, another resident of 6th St. said that in taking a public survey, he has spoken to 300 residents from all areas of the village and, according to him, none of those people are in favor of taking houses for parking.

Ross Mongiardo, representing the chamber of commerce then presented the other side of the coin with regard to village parking. He noted that parking shortages within the village have been well documented, especially with regard to lots 5,6 and 10. He stated that the chamber of commerce supports the planning commission's report, with the several comments and suggestions. "The principals of the Village Parking and Park Buffer Strip Plan should be reaffirmed. The September, 1969 Village Facts, clearly sets forth the basis for the Parking and Park Buffer Strip Plan. The planning principals set forth in this document are as sound and as relevant today as they were then. A critical element of the plan was to establish once and for all that the boundaries identified in the plan were final and irrevocable. No further expansion would be contemplated or tolerated. The mistaken notion seems to exist that the policy to 'take houses' is open ended and limitless. This belief is unfounded, and the chamber endorses the principles of defined, final boundaries to the commercial district."

According to Mongiardo, the decline in the central business district is directly correlated to the shortage of parking. He noted that many retail prospects for Franklin Avenue have turned their backs on the village because of the lack of parking.

"It is an undisputed fact that the percentage of tax revenue derived from commercial real estate has declined from 41 percent in 1990 to 31 percent for 2000. The decline in revenue began and was accelerated by increased vacancy rates, resulting property value decreases and the inevitable tax certiorari applications for tax relief," said Mongiardo. "The sad reality is that all residents of our village are negatively affected by this shift of the tax burden to single family dwellings. It cannot be denied that the stability and synergistic relationship between residents and business is essential to the continued high quality of village life." Mongiardo concluded that any further delay in the implementation of the major solutions recommended by the Planning Commission Report should be minimized.

Dr. Russell Miller argued with many of the statements made by Mongiardo, noting that $9 million of the $11 million revenue which has been lost by the village has been due to tax certiorari. Out of this money lost, much of it has come from businesses that are not affected by the parking shortages, such as the Garden City Hotel and Wyndham. He concluded by calling the chamber of commerce's claims "Bogus."

In a statement released to the press immediately following the meeting, Anthony Albanese, chairman of Albanese Organizations, stated that Franklin Avenue, especially between Stewart Avenue and Ninth Street, is making a comeback, due to adequate off-street parking and by private and public investments of more than $30 million. He goes on to state that this effort needs to be continued and that it would be in the best interests of the village to acquire 116 Eleventh Street, calling it a "win-win scenario for residents" because it would reduce the tax burden for homeowners. "There are some in our community who attempt to intentionally mislead others so they can further their own agendas. Let's be clear: providing more parking is not about taking anybody's home against their will. It is not about changing the character of our village," said Albanese. "It is about sound planning. It is about creating real value at no cost to homeowners. It is about homeowners paying less property taxes and commercial property owners paying more."

At the village meeting, when the mayor called upon the board for comments on this issue, Torino noted that the plan for a public forum and the timing of it are important for many reasons, that for himself, he would like to see it take place before he gives up his seat on the board. He further commented on how, when the POAs and the chamber and the village worked together to fight the expansion of Roosevelt Field, the Town of Hempstead had a date certain for a hearing, which was publicized. "My position is that we should not abbreviate the process to make a decision," said Torino. He then went on to question the chamber of commerce's and Albanese's argument about economics, noting that when other houses have been acquired to increase parking it did not help the tax base. He concluded by firmly recommending that a date be set for a public forum on this issue.

Though no date for a hearing was set at the meeting, the majority of the board agreed that the board's decision about what to do with regard to parking would not be made in secret.