Those for and against the condemnation of the 100 easterly feet of 114 6th Street, a portion of the Gardner property, which the village would use to convert to parking and a 50 ft. buffer strip, spoke out at a public hearing held last Thursday, with several opponents of the plan calling for the board of trustees to put the matter up as a referendum to be voted on by the residents.

The hearing, which was required by eminent domain procedure law, began with Village Counsel Gerard Fishberg explaining the purpose of the hearing and the property that the Village of Garden City was considering acquiring via condemnation. He noted that in addition to the 100 feet that the village wants to expand Parking Field 5, 200 feet of property still would remain. "No alternative locations are suitable for the proposed project," said Fishberg.

The first speaker of the evening was Jacqueline Sandler, a resident of Kildare Road. Sandler stated that she was there to dispel two myths. The first myth she wanted to dispel was the notion that only residents of the central section of the village oppose the proposal. "In truth, many people, probably a majority, from all areas of the village oppose the acquisition of these properties," said Sandler, noting that the vote of the trustees from these sections does not seem to reflect what the residents want. The second myth that Sandler said she wanted to dispel was the fact that the parking studies were done by independent engineers. She compared it to a trial in which expert witnesses are called upon. "They study the same facts and reach diametrically opposing conclusions. Each finds in favor of the side that employs that expert," said Sandler.

"Confiscation (you call it condemnation) of the Gardner property and the destruction of a beautiful home on Eleventh Street for more blacktop would be a grave disservice to all who love and care about this village," concluded Gardner. "I implore you- do not condemn the Gardner property. Do not change Garden City to Paved City."

The next speaker was John McKay, reading a letter from Peter Miemis, postmaster of the Garden City Post Office. The letter read, "As a result of a meeting had with the Central Property Owners Association held on June 4, 2001, please be advised that the post office takes no position on the proposed condemnation of the Gardner property on 6th Street in Garden City. Despite this fact, the post office is not adverse to working with the village in directing parking by post office personnel to alternative parking spaces located in Parking Field 6E to help alleviate any congestion which may exist in Field 5. As such, I am having a meeting with all the employees of the Garden City Post Office located on Franklin Avenue on June 8, 2001 to discuss this matter and propose this alternative as it is, and always has been, the intention of the post office to be a good neighbor to the village and its residents. In that spirit of cooperation, we hope our actions will benefit the community ... "

Dennis Armstrong, a 6th Street resident once again expressed his concerns and his hope that the board would choose not to condemn the Gardner property. He presented the board with a series of photos he got from the postmaster, from when the post office was being built, in which three homes were pictured that have since been removed either for the medical center or for additional parking. "As Mr. Stewart put the garden in Garden City, I hope we can put the trust in you trustees not to condemn that property," concluded Armstrong.

Pat DiMattia, a Cedar Place resident, expressed four reasons why she was opposed to the condemnation of the property. The first reason, according to DiMattia, is that the majority of the residents from throughout the village "are fundamentally opposed to the taking of residential property for parking." She suggested that every trustee call between 50-100 of their constituents, who were not in the room, and find out what the response to the proposal really is. The second objection DiMattia voiced was the cost of the project. She noted that this project could cost upwards of $1 million and the benefit would only be 30 parking spaces. Her third point was that the idea that this was a one-time opportunity for the village to improve the parking situation was incorrect. She said that by making policy changes, whereby employees of the medical center and post office could not park in Parking Field 5, the problem could be alleviated. DeMattia's final reason for objecting to the proposal was that in both the Master Plan and Master Plan Update the premise was to identify and recognize internal changes taking place in the village with the objective of preserving the character of the village and to improve the quality of living in Garden City. "Both plans were passed but both fell short of the residents' needs to preserve the quality and greenspace of Garden City," said DiMattia. "I encourage all of you [trustees] not to fall short of what the residents want and preserve and protect greenspace and the garden in Garden City."

John Amrod, a resident of 6th Street and attorney for the Gardner estate, spoke on behalf of his fellow 6th Street residents. He explained that as the attorney for the estate he was privy to information such as the fact that there has been a written offer of $800,000 for each one of the three lots of the Gardner property. He noted that for the village to acquire the one lot, the cost of just the purchase of the property would be $800,000 and they would then have to pay for legal fees, engineers, layout, and paving. In addition to all those costs, said Amrod, the village will be losing an additional house from the tax rolls. He also commented that the post office is listed in Washington as one of the post offices scheduled to be moved and commented that once that move takes place, the village will have more parking than it needs. Amrod then called for the board to put up a referendum for the village residents to vote on whether or not they want this condemnation to take place, the same way they did for the acquisition of St. Paul's. "If condemnation prevails after that referendum, if the majority want it, I assure you the opponents will go away quietly and the wounds opened by this proposal will be allowed to heal," concluded Amrod. "If you turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the residents, those wounds will fester for a long, long time."

John Donachie, a 6th Street resident, noted that he brought his wife and children to the hearing, to "put a face on this process." He noted that in past hearings many numbers were thrown around and the board never denied the cost of the project. "I can't help but be concerned with the fiduciary responsibility being demonstrated here, if these numbers are born out to be true, they clearly cannot be in the best interest of the village," said Donachie. He noted that last weekend he called on approximately three dozen friends and neighbors from throughout the village and found, though they were uninformed about the whole issue, none were in favor of condemning property for parking. "I too support the declaration that we ought to put this to a vote," said Donachie. "I guarantee you, you won't see my face again should I be proven wrong."

Jim Murphy, another resident of 6th Street encouraged the board to think about the two dozen or so children who live on that block. He stated that this was an issue that would not blow over and commented on the high turnover of spaces in that lot.

Jim Falk, a resident of 6th Street, who with his brother owns Leo's Restaurant, noted that over 360 permits are issued for the limited number of reserved spots in Parking Field 5. He said that this was a problem because there was then an overflow into the rest of the lot. He stated that though for his restaurant he might like to have reserved parking for his employees, there is none and his employees park in 7N or 6E to leave spots for customers. He noted that 6E is underused and rather than issuing permits for employees of the medical building, they should be encouraging those people to park across the street and leave those spaces for the short-term parking. "There's a lot of people in this room who feel that the heart of the village was ripped out when the Stanford White Hotel was torn down," concluded Falk. "I hope we don't mess with the village's soul through this ugly process of condemnation."

Andrew Cavanaugh, a resident of Cathedral Avenue, said that he does not remember an issue which has raised as much debate, emotion and conversation as this one. "I recognized that governing is difficult and governing, most times is leading rather than being led but on an issue of such emotion, of such, sometimes dispute, I agree with counsel's recommendation, that this should be put to a permissive referendum. It is a question of sufficient public interest and sufficient public discord between various parts of the community, that this would be an appropriate application of your ability to remit this to a popular referendum," said Cavanaugh.

Dr. Russell Miller, spoke on behalf of four physicians who have offices at 520 Franklin Avenue, all residents of Garden City. These doctors expressed their opposition to the proposed expansion of Parking Field 5. It was noted that though the cost of the spaces would be paid by the owners of the building, those costs would then be passed down to the tenants. It was then stated that these doctors were concerned about the emotional cost of this proposal on the neighbors and stated that they would encourage their employees to park elsewhere. The physicians then encouraged the board to vote no on the acquisition.

Christy Murphy, the 11-year-old daughter of one of the previous speakers, stated, "I've lived in Garden City my whole life and I know how nice it is here and I know how beautiful here it is and I've known Ruthie [Gardner] as long as I've been alive, and it's really nice property and I don't think we should be taking it down for parking and I think if an 11-year-old can stand up here and defend it then we really must not need it." Other children from the village also spoke against the condemnation. Pat DiMattia read a letter from her 13-year-old daughter Christine, in which she compared the condemnation of one piece of property to a line of dominoes, where if one is knocked down, others will follow. She noted how important it is for younger people in the village to express their opinions and concluded, "The decisions you make today are the ones you live with tomorrow." Stephanie Alongi, a resident of Hilton Avenue, was the last of the younger generation to speak. She noted that people will go to the mall and drive around for 45 minutes but won't drive around for five minutes in the village to get a spot.

James Alongi explained that he loves the chamber of commerce and when the chamber of commerce wanted to take some of the parking spots by his office to build the toll house, he supported them but commented on the irony that now the chamber, a couple of blocks over, want to take property for more parking.

More than a dozen additional residents also spoke against the condemnation and commented on the destruction of greenspace, the loss of tax revenue, and the lack of need for the additional parking. Several of these residents also called for the board to put the issue up to be voted upon.

Half a dozen residents and those in the commercial district of the village spoke in favor of the acquisition.

The first person to speak in favor of the condemnation was Russell Matthews of the Albanese Development Corporation. He reminded residents that it would be the commercial property owner who will benefit from the acquisition who will incur 90 percent of the cost of the acquisition, not the residential taxpayer. He also noted that the commercial tax base supplements the school and village taxes and helps keeps the taxes down for the residential homeowner.

Richard Schrafel, president of the Estates Property Owners Association, defended the POA's position on the acquisition. He noted that they did not come to the decision to support the acquisition lightly but had a special meeting on Dec. 13, where the consensus was that the property should be acquired. He noted that the additional parking was clearly needed. He added that the village will put a public park on 50 percent of the property, "preserving greenspace forever, establishing a fixed boundary to the commercial district and will provide landscaped screening of the parking lot from adjacent homes." He encouraged the board to act promptly on this and the other recommendations of the planning commission.

Ross Mongiardo, president of the Garden City Chamber of Commerce, stated, "The acquisition of this small, vacant parcel on 6th Street demonstrates the continuation of an orderly process in the village government." He commented on the fact the planning commission carefully studied the information about parking within the village and found that there was a need for additional parking in that lot.

"By following through on this sensible recommendation, you, the trustees, are also reaffirming the volunteer work of the commission members and their valuable contributions to the betterment of our village," said Mongiardo. "That sends a strong, positive message to all residents who voluntarily give of their time to make Garden City an excellent place in which to work and live." The chamber president argued that this acquisition of 100 feet, of the 74 miles of street in the village, will not change the face of Garden City. He too noted that 50 feet of that would be preserved as greenspace.

"Critics claim that the 31 new spots that will be created will not be enough to eliminate the parking shortfall. That's probably true," said Mongiardo. "There is a physician who treats obese patients, many of whom need to lose 100 pounds. I know he would not tell them, 'don't bother to lose 31 pounds because you really need to lose more.' You do what you can, when you can and that is what we are urging the trustees to do." He also urged the trustees to reaffirm that the buffer strip will be the permanent western boundary of the commercial district.

Bert Donley, of the Garden City Chamber of Commerce, noted that the postal employees have been asked to park in other locations in the past. He also addressed the fact that there are vacancies on the east side of Franklin Avenue, where there is parking. He said that there is parking because there are vacancies. He encouraged the board to keep in mind what was best for the entire village.

Rob Rothschild, of the Estates POA, reminded the board that three out of four property owners' associations supported the recommendations of the planning commission, which included the acquisition of this property. He also noted that there is a parking problem and stated his belief that 3/4 of the village wants this acquisition to take place.

Roger Eltringham, a resident of Meadow Street, stated that the need for additional parking in that field has been well documented, noting that cars are often parked 2/3 of the way up 6th Street. He added that the acquisition of this property is not inconsistent with the actions of the village in the past and reminded residents that this a vacant lot and does not involve the destruction of the home.

The board took no action at the hearing and gave no indication as to when a decision would be made.