Not sure what meeting Hannan Adley was watching but she has a report in the Journal News on the New Rochelle City Council meeting earlier this week that paints a very Capelli-friendly picture of the outcome.
If you watch the video it is hard to see how Adley concludes that the vote was some sort of endorsement of Capelli and the LeCount Square project yet that is how it is presented. What Talk of the Sound saw was Barry Fertel calling Capelli a “highly litigious” person and his concern that Capelli will sue the City, Sussman is talking about the project in the past tense and the Mayor is clearly expressing his sorrow over a vote that effectively marks the end of a deal to which he staked his personal reputation. Not one council member voting for the resolution expressed any hope that Capelli would be able to buy the New Rochelle Post Office, a key provision of the deal.
Perhaps she will claim otherwise but it sure sounds like her primary (if not sole) source for her report was Joe Apicella who is the only person quoted in the piece.
One major concern coming out of the story is what exactly Capelli needs to show the City with regards to the U.S. Post Office.
From the City Council resolution:
The MOU shall not further extend absent an agreement in writing with respect to the United States Post Office property.
During the meeting it appeared this was intended to mean an agreement to buy the property.
Hannan has a very different formulation:
On Tuesday, the council voted 4-3 to approve a 10th extension and 14th amendment to the contract. The changes require Cappelli Enterprises to have a written agreement showing progress in acquiring the post office by Dec. 31.
There is quite a difference between an agreement to purchase the property and agreement that here has been “progress” towards purchasing the property.
This is precisely the story of wiggle room that has gotten the City to the point where Capelli is apparently threatening to sue the City if they do not keep extending the MOU. This point needs to be clarified immediately.
Meanwhile, readers can chew on this quote from Joe Apicella:
“It’s only fair that we were given this extra time,” Apicella said. “We’ve invested upwards of $350 to $400 million on those downtown blocks, and the city recognizes that.”
Fair? “Fair” has got nothing to do with it.
Do Journalists Work For the Public Anymore?
I thought we went through this with Aman. When does a journalist go from “reporting” in the interest of the public, to editorializing a piece to curry a favorable opinion? It is my opinion, if a principle from Cappelli was quoted, then at least one of the dissenting council votes should have been offered a chance to make a statement. If they choose to make no statement, then say so. Afterall, about 43% of the council/mayorial vote voted no to the extension. That, to say the least, is significant by any measure. The reporter gives no sense of the conflicting opinions of what’s best for New Rochelle.This is the kind of stuff that fails to serve the public at large and casts doubt on anything coming from the Journal News by giving the illusion of being nothing more than an outlet for press releases issued by city hall.