Last May when Louis Cappelli was granted his twelfth extension on LeCount Square, Councilman Allbert Tarantino expressed serious reservations about the condition of the area and said he had serious reservations about voting for it in the future. Councilman Jim Stowe endorsed Tarantino’s statement and voted “yes” but added, number thirteen was the “bewitching” hour.
But when the vote for the thirteenth renewal was made tonight, after Councilman Tarantino voted “no” apparently Councilman Stowe had a different opinion of the condition of the Le Count Square and voted “yes.” This time it was Councilman Richard St. Paul who made a favorable statement about the developer but voted “yes” because of the economic conditions. He added the next time he will not vote “yes” if the developer does not bring in Target and Kohl’s. The rest of the Council voted favorably.
While Council members addressed the state of the economy and the possible benefits to taxpayers, none addressed the amount of money owed the owners of 5 Anderson Street. These owners have filed a lawsuit against Cappelli for not paying them the money promised to maintain the properties until the development occurs. The Westchester Business Journal (12/21/09) quotes Michael Longo, one owner of 5 Anderson Street as saying, “The project is dead as far as I am concerned because he (Cappelli) no longer has control of the site.”
While the economy is an issue, Cappelli’s legal and financial problems were surprisingly absent from the comments made by the Council. Why are Council members overlooking all the obvious problems and voting “yes?” Why was there no discussion about the money Cappelli owes to the owners of 5 Anderson Street? Do some Council members think the public will not notice that their position is biased in favor of developers?