The Parking Buffer Strip Plan, now often referred to by opponents as "Houses for Parking," resurfaced during the Village's last Board of Trustees meeting last Thursday.

The plan first began in 1959, when the Garden City Planning Commission recommended the adoption of a long range Park Buffer Strip and Parking Plan that 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 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.

The Garden City Planning Commission issued a report in October of 2000 encouraging the Village to act quickly on recommendations to improve the parking shortage. For the extension of Parking Field 5, the Planning Commission suggested purchasing 100 feet of 114 Sixth Street. Three property owner's associations in Garden City support, with minor suggestions of their own, the Planning Commission's report, including the Eastern Property Owner's Association (EPOA), the Western Property Owner's Association (WPOA) and the Estates POA.

The latest concern is in regard to the Village's proposal to create 26 additional parking spaces to Parking Field 6, behind the post office.

Dennis Armstrong, Sixth Street resident and neighbor of Parking Field 6, said he realizes the lot is Village-owned property. "Since it is Village-owned, there's nothing I can really do. But I still have concerns, number one being the safety of my children."

Althea Robinson, Chamber of Commerce executive director who's grown up in Garden City, agreed, saying, "There's always a concern about little children darting out onto Sixth Street."

Armstrong, along with Village Trustee John Mauk, also wants the board to preserve the trees buffering the area if possible.

"I am also concerned about taking down the pine trees and maple tree which have been here for about 60 years."

Ross Mongiardo of the Garden City Chamber of Commerce reminded Village trustees not to succumb to the "not in my backyard" syndrome. "If you don't think 'NIMBYism' cannot be dangerous just look at California," he said. "It's on the verge of becoming a third world country because of 'NIMBYs.'"

A Sixth Street resident two houses removed from the Gardner property noted a recent development he felt the Village board might not be aware of. "Since your last meeting, the Garden City Postmaster instructed employees not to park in Field 5. After talking to postal employees, I'm convinced they are heeding these words. Since that time it's remarkable that there are many spaces now vacant in the lot. It's amazing one day I came out of my house and there were only two cars parked on all of Sixth Street. I would suggest that the expert report you're relying upon is outdated. There is no longer any crunch, if there ever was one, in that parking lot. There is no crisis in Parking Field 5."

John McKay, chairman of the Central Property Owner's Association's (CPOA) parking sub-committee, reiterated condemnation should be the Village's last resort. "If we increase parking spaces, more people are going to come. The more people in that lot will only increase traffic and traffic problems. You're not making it any safer by adding more parking spots. With regard to 'NIMBYism' - I'm so tired of hearing it because it's ridiculous. We all live in this Village together and we have a right to object to things that affect us. We have a right to support our neighbors. And to be called 'NIMBYs' is just insulting."

Charles Strain, managing partner of the law firm Farrell, Fritz, P.C., also attended the meeting to remind Village officials that his clients wrote to the Village in February requesting the Village go ahead and expand Parking Field 5. "Everybody knows there is a parking problem behind the medical center. This is common knowledge now," he said.

The estimated cost of the project is $141,572 and will include a 20-foot buffer with trees and shrubbery, striping, excavation, modifying catch basins, adding catch basins, additional parking field lighting, removal and replacement of existing telephone poles and more.

Rich Schrafel, Estates POA president, said, "To let this drag on for years and years is detrimental to this Village."

Village Administrator Robert Schoelle, Jr. said he is willing to give the Armstrongs an updated version of the layout plan. The Village Board of Trustees will meet again Aug. 16.