Opponents of the proposed mega-mall in Syosset held a news conference at Oyster Bay Town Hall on Tuesday to deliver the names of over 7,000 additional families throughout the town who voted against the project in a recent mailing and presented them to Oyster Bay Town Supervisor John Venditto

At the recent news conference, Todd Fabricant, chairman of the Cerro Wire Coalition, urged Venditto and the Oyster Bay Town Board to make a decision regarding The Taubman Company's application. He was supported by 15 of 26 civic leaders representing the opposition.

"This latest response by more than 7,000 families clearly indicates that the opposition to this proposal is real, is growing and is shared by residents in virtually every community throughout the town," said Fabricant. "It's time for the Town Board to put this proposal out of its misery. The public hearing was held last September. We've waited long enough for our town officials to make a decision."

The opposition is directed at a proposal by the Michigan-based Taubman Company to build an 860,000 square foot mall on the former Cerro Wire property in Syosset. Opponents of the project have cited traffic, environmental, safety and quality of life concerns as the primary reasons for being against the mega-mall.

"It is clear that the local neighbors are opposed to this project," said a spokesman for the developer. "...We are the first ones to acknowledge, because we have been working with the community for years, that there is the surrounding community that are opposed to this and would be opposed to anything. That is the nature of land use applications."

The opposition has stated publicly that they are not opposed to all construction on this site. "This particular property is not being used effectively for a mall that will have 4,800 cars on a daily basis that will generate 3,000 cars an hour of commuter traffic, an unsafe railroad crossing and an unsafe situation for the nearby elementary school," said Fabricant. "Any other development we are certainly in favor of. That would be light manufacturing, industrial, an office building complex, a hotel combination - but a mall is not the appropriate development for that parcel."

Those in favor of the mall say that no one in the office building community believes they would support any kind of construction on the site. "They will tell you that they would welcome an office building. They are welcoming an office building because an office building is not being proposed. They would welcome a hotel because a hotel is not being proposed."

Jack Kennedy, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, has no guarantee that if an office complex were built on that site that the union construction workers would get work. "We have a guarantee from the Taubman Company," said Kennedy. "We also have a commitment from them that we will do all of the maintenance in the shopping center so there is ongoing employment opportunities for us even after the job is finished. Not only that, but whenever there is a tenant change, we have a guarantee that the tenant change work will be done by our people. It is a better construction opportunity for us than an office building."

Mall opponents do not want to limit union work according to Fabricant. "Cerro Wire Coalition is not restricting employment of the thousands of brothers and sisters in the union," said Fabricant. "We are offering them alternative projects to work on. We do want them to live a very prosperous life, but the project they work on should not be a mall."

The opposition recently sent out petitions to roughly a third of the residents of the Town of Oyster Bay and delivered the returned responses to Venditto. These new 7,003 petitions bring the number of those who have said "No Mall Here" to 44,277. According to Fabricant, groups representing 35 percent of the households in the entire town have said no to the project.

"The response [from the mailings] was independent motivation on the part of the residents who are voicing out and saying that they do not want [the mall]," said Fabricant. "It is no different than the 6,000 signatures that [Taubman's people] claim they had from residents."

In response to the recent petitions that were brought to the town by the opposition, a Taubman spokesperson said, "We are talking about a mass-market mailing that is professionally produced and has been mailed by a marketing company. If the answer is that we are going to engage in a numbers game, we can have tens of thousands of union families and others who are in favor of protecting their own pocketbooks sign a petition within the Town of Oyster Bay.

"The fact remains that this is an industrial relic - It is surrounded by two highway depots, a dump, a dog pound, the LIE, the LIRR and an industrial park. This site is appropriate for economic redevelopment and an up-scale retail mall makes sense. It will be up to the Oyster Bay Town Board to weigh that equation as to whether or not on the eve of significant unemployment among the construction trades and on the eve of what will be significant property tax increases for all of us, this mall should in fact be approved and construction be allowed to proceed."

Fabricant responded to Taubman's statements saying that "If [Taubman] is implying that we have significant unemployment in the trades because we are on the edge of a recessionary cycle, then the development of an 860,000 square foot mall is not a productive environment - we will then have a ghost town of stores. That property is a developmental piece of land for the appropriate project and that is not another mall."

At the recent news conference, Howard Avrutine, co-council to the Birchwood Civic Association and a member of the coalition, expressed the group's outrage over, what they refer to as a propaganda campaign, that has been mounted by the developer, seeking to downplay community opposition to the project and implying that property taxes will skyrocket in the Town of Oyster Bay if the plan is not approved.

"The Taubman Co., and its team of consultants, has chosen a path of deceit and distortion in a desperate attempt to fool the public and our elected officials into thinking that the only opposition to this ill-conceived project is a small group of individuals when they know that is simply not true," said Avrutine. "It is evident by their highly questionable tactics that they cannot be trusted. While we support development of this property, we have no interest in dealing with the Taubman Co., now or in the future, and believe our elected officials shouldn't either."

Fabricant presented Venditto with the petitions and expressed his and the coalition's concern regarding the delay in the town board making a decision regarding this application.

"After the hearing in September 2000, we expected a decision two or three months later," said Fabricant. "It is now April and still no decision. We came to the Supervisor's office to ask that a vote finally be taken. This proposal does not fit in the community. There are vacancies at other malls."

Venditto accepted the petitions and stated that, because of the impact on the town, much more time is needed to make an intelligent decision. "I want all residents to understand that this board will not be bullied into making a decision," said Venditto. "We will not be intimidated and we will make a decision when the time is right. This board will not sacrifice accuracy for speed." No timetable is set for the board to make a decision, but Venditto ensures that, as with all zoning applications, it is high on the board's priority list.

"I do not think that we are trying to bully him - I think that we are just trying to ask for a decision," said Fabricant. "I would hope that they could vote, no matter what the vote is, as quickly as possible."

Kennedy is upset about the length of time it is taking the board to make a decision. "We are upset about the delay from the Town Board because we would like to see the process move forward so we can have the work opportunity," he said.

A Taubman spokesperson disagrees. "The town board is being very deliberative for a reason. They recognize the strategic nature of their decision as it affects property taxes, the economy, and employment levels. If they want to take their time and think long and hard about this, we are not going to second guess them."

The town board is currently still reviewing the Town Environmental Quality Review Commission's findings. There is no deadline set for the board to render a decision.