in the March 3 issue of the Westchester Guardian
A new downsized plan for Echo Bay Development in New Rochelle is facing serious scrutiny. Councilman Richard St. Paul felt the "principles of democracy" far outweighed the $100,000 allocated by Forest City Residential to evaluate the plans to develop Echo Bay. In his view the public should have been allowed to comment on this revised plan before it was approved. His motion to table the Council vote until the plan could be presented to the public failed 4-3 along party lines with Mayor Noam Bramson casting the deciding vote.
Before the vote Development Commissioner Michael Freimuth suggested Forest City Residential be given a year to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of this proposal which was reduced in scope. Forest City Residential’s representative, Abe Naparstek, emphasized the company wants to "figure out how to make it happen" as a true public-private project citing five principles. (1) There is a reduction in infrastructure in the project. (2) Underground parking would be eliminated, significantly reducing costs. (3) With no final number in mind, density and the number of residential and retail units would be reduced. (4) There will be phases for the project, eliminating the need for a plan for the entire area. Their focus will be on the parcels the City owns. (5) The approach to the Armory will be rethought, and the company will work with the City and "stakeholders to find uses for it."
The questions from Council members were wide ranging and comprehensive. Councilman Jared Rice was interested in how many jobs would be created, whether the buildings would be LEED certified, and whether they would be willing to work with the City on the uses of the Armory. Council member Marianne Sussman wanted to know about access to the waterfront and the central benefits of the project. When she asked about open space, she was told the key would be to designate enough open space on the waterfront. Then Councilman Albert Tarantino wanted to know what guarantees Forest City Residential would give to the city that they would be going to the next two phases. Naparstek felt no one could predict the future. When the space needed for surface parking was brought up, Naparstek felt "shared parking" could be created because "renters drive away during the day." Then Mayor Bramson commented, "If Council is ultimately dissatisfied" it would not support the project. With no public access to the waterfront he was "not going to support" this project.
With no hesitation Councilman Lou Trangucci asked about the removal of underground parking and the reduction of open space, but Naparstek countered some parking would be on the first floor of the residences. When IDA tax abatements were mentioned Naparstek replied that to receive an 7% to 8% return on the project, tax abatements were needed. Trangucci wanted to know if they would guarantee sales tax revenue to the City if their projections were inaccurate, adding the City’s costs to move the City Yard for this developer is $35 million and he wanted to know who picks up the tab? City Manager Chuck Strome added there was a site picked for the City Yard unless this council feels "it is no longer viable." Bramson added the City Yard cost was set at $25 million, but until the bonds are sold, there is no exact price. According to Strome, the range for costs would always be a rough estimate developed by the Commissioner of Public Works and a consultant. He said the selected Beechwood site was not the only site previously identified. The old study according to Trangucci was not going to work and he has a dozen unanswered questions such as "What is the true cost of cleanup?"
Councilman St. Paul continued that with this memorandum of understanding there had been no public presentation. Despite Naparstek‘s statement that he would meet with three neighborhood groups and the Save Our Armory Committee, St. Paul wanted to hear about the $100,000 Forest City Residential would commit to this revised project. When Councilman Tarantino asked if a full analysis could be made with that amount of money, Naparstek concluded he was not authorized to spend more. Commissioner Freimuth added he was going to focus on the economic questions. Bramson after further discussion said this was the most commented upon of any project since he has been involved. Tarantino warned if there was not enough money allocated here, he would not vote for this project in the future. As soon as St. Paul’s motion to table the vote until March failed, the Council approved this new Echo Bay MOU (memorandum of agreement) with Councilmen St. Paul and Trangucci voting against it.
After the meeting, Jim Murphy, a concerned veteran and New Rochelle resident, said this is now another year when the Armory will not be restored and rehabilitated. The deed transferring this Armory from the New York State to the City of New Rochelle required the City to maintain the building which they have not done. Instead it allowed damage to occur during the last 12 years the City owned the building The Co-Chair of the Save Our Armory Group, Peter Parente, said he was not privy to the details of the revised project but there was no public presentation. He was happy they were saving the Armory because "we want to whole Armory to be saved." Phase one of this new plan would only use the City’s land. Forest City Residential has not made any investment in this project. I didn’t like the way the Council meeting was run. The MOU expired and this is a new MOU. Questions were not answered. There was no reason for anyone to support this project. The Save Our Armory Committee (a New Rochelle group and a New Rochelle developer) previously sent a letter signed by Ron Tocci to the City Manager, Mayor and Council asking to be heard.. We had asked to have our proposal considered before, not after the vote..