Garden City Village Mayor Robert Lewis, announcing that as of yet the board has not been successful in negotiating a price for the easterly 100 feet of 114 Sixth Street, from the Gardner estate, asked village counsel to explain the procedure of condemnation in case those negotiations are not successful. Upon learning that the first step in this procedure is a public hearing, the board set a hearing for June 7 to consider this action.

During the citizens' comments on agenda items portion of the meeting, prior to the board voting on the property acquisition, over a dozen residents, the majority of whom live on Sixth Street spoke out against the property acquisition. Many of these residents asked how this property acquisition would be for the good of the public.

Dennis Armstrong, a Sixth Street resident, said that rather than increasing parking in Parking Field 5, something should be done to encourage postal employees and medical personnel to park elsewhere so that lot is available for short-term parking. John Donachie, another Sixth Street resident, spoke about the cost of the proposed action, noting that each parking space may end up costing $30-40,000. He also said that he was disappointed that the other property owners' associations were not supporting the central section in this opposition. He compared this action to if one of their neighbors decided to pave over their front lawn. Other residents expressed concern for the safety of the children who live on Sixth Street, that more parking would lead to additional traffic on the road.

John Amrod, a Sixth Street resident who also represents the Gardner estate, asked whether another decision had been made with regard to the house on 11th Street that is being offered to the village and further questioned why the board has not answered questions that have been asked by the residents in the past. "Why are we being stonewalled?" Amrod asked. Lewis then made a comment about Amrod benefiting from the sale of the property, at which point Amrod explained that he will be paid whether the land is purchased by the developer who is planning on buying the property or the village. Lewis apologized for his error and said that though the Albanese Organization has offered the village the 11th Street house, the board has not taken any action at this time. Later in the meeting he said that there was an immediate opportunity available for the Gardner property that would not be there in the future whereas there is not such a time crunch with the 11th Street house so that is why they are trying to settle the Gardner property first before further considering the 11th Street property. Following Lewis' statement Amrod went on to say that there was no need for additional parking in Parking Field 5, that no shortage exists in that lot. He called the effort a "waste of taxpayer money" and criticized the village for considering it. He added that this would not be the first time the village wasted taxpayer money, and said that the illumination of St. Paul's was an example of such waste. Amrod further said that the plan to expand parking would be a violation of the spirit of the Gentleman's Agreement. He said that the spirit of the agreement calls for the four property owners' associations to support each other when one is against something that the village is considering. He also said that the village's proposal goes against the tradition of not condemning residentially zoned property. "If the board approves this proposal it will be caving in to the pressure of one developer who has no respect for the residential character of this village," said Amrod.

John McKay, chairman of the CPOA subcommittee on parking, commented on the fact that the board was considering the taking of property via eminent domain, a proposal he called, "less than friendly." McKay described the path that the board is considering a "slippery slope," whereby they will go from condemning a vacant piece of land, to condemning a vacant house and then possibly to a house that does have people living in it. He further commented that the 30 spaces that will be gained by acquiring the 100 feet of property will not fulfill the parking need.

During the formal agenda portion of the meeting, Mayor Lewis stated that a number of weeks ago the board voted to open up negotiations on that piece of property but have not yet been able to come to an agreement. He added that the board would consider the acquisition either through friendly means or by condemnation and asked Village Counsel Gerard Fishberg to explain the condemnation process and what would be required in order to take the property via eminent domain.

Fishberg explained that a municipality has the right to acquire property by condemnation if they are acquiring the property for a public purpose. The first step of the process, according to Fishberg is to hold a public hearing to determine whether the acquisition of property through condemnation is appropriate. The board, after the public hearing must make certain determinations and findings with regard to whether it is appropriate to condemn the property and then must publish a synopsis of those findings in the newspaper. Following that time there is a limited scope of time for judicial review of the findings dealing with the question of whether there is a valid public purpose of the condemnation. According to Fishberg providing parking is usually considered a valid public purpose. Following that period of review, the law has a procedure whereby the municipality must make an offer for the property. In a condemnation a municipality must pay 100 percent of the appraised value of the property.

Following Fishberg's explanation, Trustee John Mauk made a motion that the board set a June 7 public hearing to consider the property condemnation. He further went on to comment on some of the statements made during the citizen's portion of the meeting. He said that though many of those sitting in the audience may see the board as being uncaring and unfeeling, they are in fact trying to balance the needs of the entire community against the concerns of the residents of that immediate area. He further noted that there is an immediate opportunity with the Gardner estate to acquire that property before a builder buys the whole thing, razes the house and builds three houses, which is the current plan for the property. Mauk added, "To me that smacks, to a certain extent, as destruction of greenspace."

While Mauk was making his statements, several residents began yelling at the board, swearing at them, and questioning how condemning that property would be for the good of the whole community. A group of approximately a dozen residents got up and stormed out of the room.

Trustee Brian Murray then said that he wished to echo some of Mauk's comments and make some of his own. He contended that each trustee, no matter which way they were voting on this issue believed that they were voting with the best interests of the community at heart. He then said, with regard to Amrod's statements about this bringing about the end of the Community Agreement, "If the expansion of a parking lot brings about the end of our system of government, then we have no system of government."

Following Murray's statements, the board voted on Mauk's motion to hold the public hearing to consider the property condemnation on June 7. Trustees Segerdahl, Mauk, Lundquist, Bee and Mayor Lewis voted in favor of the hearing and Trustees Murray, Miller, and Negri were opposed.

During the board's comments, Mayor Lewis stated that he was not pleased with the events that transpired during the meeting and stated, "I don't believe the performance was typical of this village and I'm sad to see it happen. We would like to bring these issues to closure, all of us on the board. We have many pressing issues to consider, parking is one of them, it isn't all of them. We are trying to bring it to closure the best way we know how ... By no means can I condone the actions of the residents. They are perfectly welcome to come back in and speak at this podium but they are not to interrupt an ongoing meeting. I hope in the future that we can have better decorum here."

The next portion of the meeting was the public comment period at which point one of the residents who began yelling at the board apologized for being out of order. Edward Finnernan, a resident of Sixth Street, then questioned the condemnation procedure and whether or not residents had a right to challenge the condemnation. Fishberg explained that in the eminent domain law there is the hearing, the determination of findings that have to be made within 90 days after the hearing, then within 30 days after the completion of the publication of these findings, there can be a judicial review. He stressed again that this review has a very limited scope and can only pertain to whether the condemnation is truly for a public purpose. Fishberg added that throughout this process, the negotiations for the property can continue and the property could be acquired through friendly means rather than by condemnation. Negotiations and condemnation are not mutually exclusive," said Fishberg. Finnernan then asked whether the board would be addressing the public at the hearing. Fishberg said that basically it is an opportunity for the board to gather public input but said that the law does require that there be a presentation, a map, a property description, and some outline of the purposes of the condemnation.