As the village board, once again, looks at the issue of whether or not to implement the Park Buffer Strip Plan, originally instituted over 40 years ago, it is important that residents understand the history of this longstanding debate.

The Park Buffer Strip Plan, now often referred to, by opponents, as "Houses for Parking" first began in 1959. In that year the Garden City Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a long range Park Buffer Strip and Parking Plan, which suggested acquiring specific homes, as they became available, and converting those properties into village parking areas with a 50 foot buffer between those parking lots and the abutting homes. This buffer would screen the residential areas to the west of the parking fields with trees and shrubbery. This buffer strip would serve as a permanent westerly border between the commercial and residential portions of the village, which, as determined by the planning commission in 1961, would protect homeowners from further commercial intrusion. This plan and the boundaries have long been supported by the Garden City Chamber of Commerce. At no time has the condemnation of houses been recommended, rather the acquisition of these properties, by the village, as they become available, has been encouraged.

Out of the properties included in the plan, four have already been purchased by the village:114 Ninth Street, 117 11th Street, 115 Ninth Street, and, most recently, 113 10th Street. Currently, 113 10th Street lies vacant, with a house on either side of it, the house to the east separating it from parking field 10. When the village declined purchasing the home at 116 11th Street, the Albanese Corporation purchased it with the hope that the village would eventually acquire it in order to enact the Buffer Strip Plan for the lots between 10th and 11th Streets. This house now remains vacant.

In January 1997, a group called The Business Planning Coalition, made up of 16 members, submitted a report to the mayor and board of trustees. The report, entitled: "Respect the Tradition, Manage the Change: A Strategy to Revitalize Garden City's Business Districts" was not supported by all 16 members of the coalition, and three members branched off and submitted their own report, which was entitled: "A Minority Opinion on Respect the Tradition, Manage the Change: A Strategy to Revitalize Garden City's Business Districts." This coalition was made up of village officials, commercial real estate owners/experts, small business owners, Seventh Street representatives, and representatives of each of the four property owners' associations.

Among other recommendations of the original report of the Business Planning Coalition was the acquisition of both 113 and 115 10th Street, as well as 116 11th Street. In addition, the report suggests that, pursuant to the Park Buffer Strip Plan, if 121 Sixth Street becomes available, the village acquire it to improve the parking by the post office.

Chairperson of the Coalition, Trustee Judith Asselta, was one of the three members of the coalition that branched off to create the minority report. Asselta, along with Gary Bencivenga, of the Central Property Owners Association and Mary Zimmer, of Seventh Street Merchants, discouraged the acquisition of properties where homes existed for parking. The minority report focused on what they termed "creative solutions to supplying adequate parking in commercial areas." According to this report, the Park Buffer Strip Plan was abandoned by the village in 1979. They further encouraged the hiring of a consultant to explore various parking options such as piggy back parking.

The village did, in fact hire a consultant to study the parking situation in the village. In May, 2000 the final draft of the parking study conducted by Buckhurst, Fish, & Jacquemart, Inc. (BFJ) was presented to the planning commission. Though the parking consultant did recommend alternatives to property acquisition, they also recommended that if the property at 115 10th Street could be acquired, the house on that property could be moved to the village-owned lot at 113 10th Street, and Parking Field 10 could be extended, yielding 106 additional parking spaces. The consultant further recommended, if it became available, that the village acquire a portion of the property at 114 Sixth Street, and extend Parking Field 5, without moving or demolishing that house. They further suggested a minor intrusion into the buffer zone, without acquiring any property, in order to extend Parking Field 6.

Following the release of the BFJ Report, the Planning Commission of the Village of Garden City, in Oct. 2000, issued their own report, encouraging the village to act quickly on recommendations to improve the parking shortage in the village. For the extension of Parking Field 5, the Planning Commission suggested purchasing 100 feet of 114 Sixth Street. They noted, in their report that Parking Field 10 presented them with the most difficult challenge. The planning commission suggested moving the house at 115 10th Street, unless the property owner would consider selling the village the property, in which case they would favor the more "aggressive and expeditious approach" of demolishing the house and extending the lot into both the 115 and 113 properties. They additionally suggested, as an alternative, the removal of the house at 116 11th Street, currently owned by the Albanese Corporation, to further extend that lot. In any of these cases, the planning commission recommended the employment of the proposed 50 ft. buffer zone.

The planning commission report drew ire from some residents, who felt that the less-aggressive approaches suggested by BFJ were ignored, and praise from others. The Garden City Chamber of Commerce, for the most part, with some suggestions, supported the planning commission's report, especially with regard to property acquisition. The chamber has firmly stated that they believe the parking shortage in the village has had a negative impact, not only on the business community, but on the village as a whole. They have stated that because of the vacancies in the business community, which they blame on the parking shortfall, the tax burden has now fallen upon the residential community. The Albanese Development Corporation, which has actively worked upon the revitalization of Franklin Avenue, also encouraged the mayor and board of trustees to follow the planning commission's recommendation with regard to acquisition of property in order to extend Parking Field 10.

Each of the property owners' associations also took the opportunity to respond to the planning commission's report, before the mayor and trustees make their decision. The Estates POA supported many of the planning commission's recommendations such as the acquisition of the vacant 100 feet adjacent to Parking Field 10, but disagreed with others. They said that they do not believe the consideration of the property acquisition of 115 10th Street is appropriate at this time, because they do not believe that family should feel as though they are being "harassed to sell or move" their home. They said, only when that property is available and offered to the village, should the village consider purchasing that property to expand Parking Field 10. The Central POA takes the position that the expansion of parking fields into residential areas should not be utilized without first utilizing every other option available before considering property acquisition. "We reject with finality the proposition that the acquisition of property, homes or the destruction of homes or green space for the creation of parking lots is a valid village policy," said the CPOA. The Eastern POA submitted what they call their majority report, noting that they have a minority, "Concerned about the taking of house." The EPOA agrees with the idea of acquiring 100 feet of property at 114 Sixth Street to expand Field 5, but only agree to the relocation of the house at 115 10th Street when and if it becomes available. They also support, 9 votes to 4, the removal of the house at 116 11th Street, but are not in favor of the demolishing of both homes. The Western POA agrees with the recommendations of the planning commission with regard to Parking Fields 5 and 6, but request that heavy plantings and other natural screenings be installed to maintain the aesthetics of the village. The WPOA, with regard to Parking Field 10, agree to only amending the layout of the field, not the acquisition of homes. They further state, "The WPOA feels very strongly that the parkland located next to 115 10th Street should be made more accessible to village residents. The wall should be removed so that the park becomes more visually accessible to the residents at a minimum. Most village residents are unaware that the parkland exists and efforts should be made to include town residents in the enjoyment of this piece of valuable parkland."

The mayor and board of trustees are currently taking all these opinions expressed by the various facets of the village into consideration before issuing their decisions regarding the parking situation in the village. This issue has once again been brought to the forefront, because they are still being encouraged to purchase 116 11th Street and because, with the death of the resident of the home located at 114 Sixth Street, that property has become part of the estate and the village may have the opportunity to act upon the recommendations regarding Parking Field 5. The board has not yet announced when they will be issuing their determinations.