The eventual fate of the former Cohan property has become a high stakes, multi-dimensional drama with the value of ''open space'' pitted against private development, the ''communal good'' weighed against individual rights, and historical preservation versus ''progress.'' Also at issue is whether the intention to develop the parcel in question as a passive park could be carved in stone, protected into perpetuity and whether such a usage justifies the ''taking'' of the land. Simmering resentments of neighbors adjacent to Steppingstone Park have flared into angry complaints while other nearby residents praise the park district for having addressed many of the problems of parking, traffic and unwelcome sounds. It is about conflicting dreams and visions for the property.

All of these convergent elements came to a head at the July 20 meeting of the board of trustees of Kings Point.

The Great Neck Park District needs the blessing of the Kings Point board of trustees to ''acquire by negotiation or condemnation'' the waterfront parcel of 1.5 acres to the east of Steppingstone owned by Kings Point Heights, LLC, but their hopes to move forward were halted when the Kings Point board deferred making a decision to a ''subsequent meeting.''

The village hall was filled to capacity with Kings Point residents, many of whom had not attended previous meetings on the dispensation of the property, and who had been alarmed by an anonymous, vividly colored orange flyer mailed to addresses in the 11024 zip code area. Also attending were the longtime supporters of landmarking and preservation who have followed the meetings regularly and who were incensed by the flyer described by various speakers as ''scurrilous, inflammatory and a cruel hoax.''

Mayor Michael Kalnick began the meeting by addressing the attorney for King Point Heights, LLC, Paul Bloom of the law firm of Morton Weber & Associates, whose home address on Fairview Avenue was the return address on the flyer, ascertaining that Mr. Bloom indeed was the author of the mailing. Calling the content of the flyer ''false and misleading,'' Mr. Kalnick refuted the claim in the notice that stated, ''The Village Board of Trustees plans to spend millions ($$$$) of taxpayer dollars to expand Steppingstone Park. If approved, this waste of taxpayer money will increase our taxes and bring outside traffic into our community.'' Mr. Kalnick clarified for the audience that the Kings Point board was not considering appropriating money for the acquisition of the land for the park district. Mr. Kalnick concluded his reprimand of Mr. Bloom and his flyer by saying, ''I am personally affronted by it.''

Mr. Bloom did not defend the content of the flyer at that juncture, but did present the mayor and board with a petition opposing a Steppingstone expansion signed by 80 Kings Point residents. The mayor indicated that the village office had received many phone calls from perturbed residents all day with 79 opposed to an expansion and 17 in favor.

First, residents of Kings Point were allowed to speak. For some, being near Steppingstone is an asset. It assures them of a 13-acre tract of land that is secured from development, provides a lovely view and on some summer nights, music floats their way. For others, it is a liability. One resident remarked, ''Everybody can romanticize this, but it's a pain. We don't have a peaceful summer.'' Larry Wolf remarked, ''I am vehemently opposed to the expansion of Steppingstone. It's underutilized already with minor benefits. It (an expansion of the park) will reduce our tax base.'' Arthur Shapiro commented that traffic becomes bottlenecked during events and that Kings Point has ''a rather small police force that couldn't handle any more.'' Resident Jane Segal who lives nearby says, ''This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The park district handles the parking smoothly ... it would be an enhancement ... I hope it happens.''

For the record, Richard Arrenella responded that in all the years the park district has sponsored concerts, the police have never been called to handle a situation. He also added that in defense of the ''many talented performers,'' he objected to hearing the music referred to as ''noise'' by some neighbors.

Julian Kane called for the board to ask for full disclosure of the principals in Kings Point Heights, LLC and suggested that a referendum on the matter be considered. He drew a laugh from a rather emotional and expressive audience that clapped and hissed freely during the long evening, when he said, ''I don't think this is going to cause Kings Point residents to go on the breadline.'' He added, ''We, in Kings Point, are supportive of things that make the world great.''

Kings Point resident Louise Sloane was critical of Mr. Bloom's protestations regarding Kings Point's potential tax revenue losses when he had originally been on the agenda for the evening to request a tax abatement for his client. Trustee Sheldon Kwiat explained that when the mansion was landmarked, the Historical Preservation Commission had indicated that the owners had the right to apply for a tax abatement to offset the expenses associated in shoring up and restoring the house.

Rosalie Soladar said, ''If a vote were taken, I'm sure the majority would want the expansion of Steppingstone Park.''

Chairman of the Committee to Preserve the Cohan Mansion, Leon Korobow, pointed out that if the park district were to acquire the relatively small parcel, there would not be an appreciable increase in traffic and noise. ''Those are separate issues,'' he said, ''that the park district is taking pains to minimize.''

For the first time in a public setting, attorney for the owners Paul Bloom, stated that his clients' intention from the beginning was to build a house for themselves on the waterfront property. Pointing to the rear of the room where Mr. and Mrs. Guela were standing he said, ''That young couple and their (extended) family are the Kings Point Heights principals. You're not dealing with that developer but with a couple saddled with an obligation to stabilize the decrepit Cohan house.'' He added that if the prime piece of property were condemned and they were deprived of the right to develop their property for their personal use, their burden would be doubled.

In addition, Mr. Bloom argued that the value of the remaining lots would be decreased by 20 to 25 percent, if the park district were allowed to "take" the waterfront lot, which would reflect in reduced tax revenues for the village. He pointed out that the use of the eminent domain power under New York State's Open Space Conservation Program ''should be seldom, if ever, used.'' ''We are not willing sellers,'' he emphasized.

In a memorandum, dated July 18, 2000 from Mr. Bloom, to the village board, Mr. Bloom accused the park district of being ''unable to afford to purchase all of Kings Point Height's property at one time and, therefore, now is seeking to snatch it up, bit by bit, at bargain basement prices or alternatively, the distinct possibility exists that the park district has invoked the threat of a protracted condemnation process in order to drive Kings Point Heights to the bargaining table.''

Park District Commissioner Bill Dobkin, at the June meeting of the village board had publicly stated that the commissioners were prepared, if given approval from the village, to proceed with having the property appraised, holding a public hearing on the matter and seeking bond approval from the Town of North Hempstead.

Park District Superintendent Richard Arrenella stated at the April village trustees meeting when questioned about the park district's tactics said, ''We have always been open about the fact that we would like to acquire this property, dating back to 1984, and to pay a fair market price for it. We have no intent to de-value the property. It is our responsibility to protect and preserve our parklands and so we have to be concerned and look at any adjacent subdivision with great scrutiny. Thank you for bringing the subject into the open, so we can answer it.''

Mr. Bloom counters in his memorandum that the park district, by virtue of seeking to acquire the land for a passive use ''demonstrates that the park district does not have a legitimate public purpose behind its proposed acquisition of the parcel." He also warns that if the park district were to obtain the land, there would be major costs associated with repairing and renovating the dock and seawall on the property. He cites the cost of repairing the Steppingstone seawall last year for which the district received an approval from the Town of North Hempstead for a $1.4 million bond proposal.

In Mr. Bloom's memorandum, he estimates the loss of revenue to Kings Point in ''hundreds of thousands of dollars,'' a more modest estimate than in his flyer in which he predicts millions of lost dollars.

According to Mayor Kalnick, the primary reason for deferring a decision that evening hinged on the opinion of the park district attorney in the matter, Ivan Klein, who in discussions with the village attorney, Steven Limmer, stated that while the current park commissioners have pledged to develop the parcel as a passive park with no structures, athletic activities or concerts, there are legal difficulties in writing such a covenant that would bind future commissioners to such agreements. Indicating that the board wished to further explore all possibilities before making a decision, Mr. Kalnick was firm despite the urgings of park commissioners Dobkin and Tamarin to reach a decision that evening.

Commissioner Bill Dobkin reminded the board that the current commissioners were ''the authors of the policy that finally restricted concerts to members of the park district'' out of consideration to nearby residents. He went on, ''We have two top-notch lawyers who could work out an agreement ... there could be self-regulation ... we're so close, just give us the go-ahead.'' Trustee Sheldon Kwiat responded, ''We are aware of your cooperation and don't doubt your sincerity, but we have to come to grips with what successive boards could do.''

The request by the park district to the village to acquire the property opens the door for a renegotiation on the acceptable usage of the entirety of Steppingstone from Kings Point's perspective, not just the desired parcel.

Toward the end of the evening, Mr. Guela rose to address the board saying, ''The dream of the park (to acquire the land) is not our dream. The board understands that the landmarking is a great burden to us.''

Following the meeting, when asked for his reading of the board, Mr. Arenella responded: ''There has been extensive development of vacant land in Kings Point over the past decade. I believe the mayor and trustees would like to be remembered as an administration concerned with land preservation and the environment rather than an administration that permitted the development of every foot of waterfront and every parcel of open land. I believe they will grant the request of the park district to acquire this property.''

Mr. Bloom was also asked to comment, but declined.

The next meeting of the board of trustees will be held on Aug. 28, but there is no promise that a decision will be rendered at that time. But it is clear that both sides would like to have this issue resolved soon and that the disparate views are growing more passionate and intractable.