In the 13. 2013 iasue of the Westchester Guardian
Mayor Noam Bramson and Forest City Residential made a presentation on the Echo Bay project to the East End Civic Association. On June 4, 2013 more than 250 residents as well as New Rochelle City Council members attended the meeting. Beth Acocella, President of the Association, started the meeting by asking questions about the type of apartments that would be built and the taxes that would be generated.
Bramson then talked about conditions at Echo Bay and East Main Street by saying, “You don’t realize you are on the waterfront.” Twenty years ago an effort was launched to develop the area. “Hundreds of residents” became engaged in the plan. More recently, the city chose to ask for proposals because the costs of development were so high and the city could not accomplish any development on their own. Forest City Residential was designated as the developer, while a fairly large development was originally planned, after 2007 the crash of the economy reduced it to the city yard site.
The representative from Forest City Residential, Abe Naperstak, showed examples of their development projects and slides of what the New Rochelle site looked like. He emphasized that Forest City builds projects and keeps them for generations (probably alluding to the Avalon building that was sold in New Rochelle). He said no students would live in the apartments. They will screen people for the apartments and would make sure there are no students. This Main Street site will be used to build four stories of apartments above a one story retail space. This will “open up the waterfront” and contain acres of green space. It will not include the Armory and the project will proceed with or without Armory development.
The planning process took the many concerns of citizens and tried to address them with hard facts and statistics according to Naperstak. The number one concern was the schools. Admitting Avalon underestimated the number of students, this development has used the Rutgers model which is commonly accepted. They demonstrated how projections made with the Rutgers Model would have estimated totals closer to the actual number of students in the schools.
Minimizing the number of school children added to the schools he claimed it was an .002% increase. Over $15.7 million in a 20 year period would be paid to support the schools. This is broken down to $17,500 per student and $5,200 per students for private school busing, both yearly. The claim was made that the school district found their concerns were addressed.
Bramson addressed the relocation of the city yard. He compared it to trying to use “a beat-up old car with no airbags.” He said it was unreasonable to continue using this city yard. One way or another, he added, an “investment’ in a new city yard must be made.” Building the yard at the present site and closing off the waterfront would “stick it to the taxpayers.” The option is to move to another site. He stated Forest City’s cash payments would pay for the first few years of the debt service on this project. He emphasized dealing with these costs intelligently. Emphasizing Forest City can develop this site better than the city can, he said, “the land has no value” in its present form. The community can benefit with open waterfront, retail business on Main Street, and having a catalyst for future development.
There were many laughs when Bramson claimed that the value of every single property in the area will go up if this project is built because there will be five acres of public park. Only l0% of this project will be workforce apartments because this is a city policy.
Responses to the presentation followed. John D’Alois felt the impact on the neighborhood needed to be considered. He felt this plan architecturally did not match the neighborhood. The East End was excluded from all the meetings on this proposal and the residents feel resentful. Issues of traffic and overcrowding need to be addressed. The Armory has been systematically dismantled so it cannot be used. There is a growing number of people signing a petition against this project.
Representing Citizens for a Better New Rochelle, Adam Egelberg said the project was financially unsound. Clarifying that he is not an east end resident, he said he is a hedge fund manager whose job is to research to invest money. The City has been misrepresenting and in 2011 did not look at the cost to repair the city yard and has not contemplated that the Beechwood site may be too small. Projects should be pursued and tangible benefits determined on a project by project basis. Avalon, for example, has 68% commercial vacancies and is benefiting from these tax abatements. He felt the project was unfair to residents asking, “Did you ever get a tax break after you made a renovation?” He felt there is only one chance to do this correctly and if it is not done right, “that’s it.”
This was followed by Ron Tocci, former State Assemblyman, who reminded the group there were other properties in the original Forest City Proposal. The Armory deed requirements are for public use of the building, he reminded them, and cannot be changed without a lobbying effort by the city. At the proposed Beechwood site for a new city yard, there is only one way out for trucks to exit onto Main Street. New Rochelle has a lot more residents than White Plains but the sales tax generated in White Plains far exceeds New Rochelle’s sales tax revenue. What New Rochelle needs is a master plan focusing on retail. He lamented, “The city makes the same mistakes over and over again.”
Former Mayor Len Paduano said he was glad he was not the Mayor now. Previously, nearby Five Island Park won national awards because it was a good project. This city has been too busy giving tax abatements. He disputed Bramson’s remarks that sales tax has doubled. The city requested an additional 1% in sales tax, and in reality sales tax has gone down. The management of the city is not good. For example, the Boys Club was sold. He doesn’t trust the city. Under his administration when there was double digit inflation but they kept the tax rate down. He told Bramson, “You should be maintaining the city yard.”
When Yolanda Ellington suggested why the plan could not include more views of the waterfront from the Post Road, Bramson answered this was one of the “challenges of the site,” because there were narrow corridors between the buildings. Five story buildings were necessary to make the project viable. Rosemary Spalin added that because the building would have narrow walkways it would not open up the waterfront
Vincent Malfetano wanted to know which Forest City employee was involved in the Yonkers scandals. Naperstak said he was working on this project with integrity and did not know the person involved who he believed was no longer working at Forest City.
When Bramson was asked a bout the art center for the Armory that had been proposed but never looked at, Bramson insisted the selection process was”open” but the team selected was unable to put forth the needed finances. A new request for proposals has been made. Bramson was asked how he could “morally justify” this project. His answer was it was “good” and would transform the area significantly. Tocci later added the City’s first approval plan for Echo Bay was to destroy the Armory. The Save Our Armory Committee had engaged an architect to make a presentation to the City but only Councilmen Lou Trangucci and Al Tarantino showed up. He reiterated, “Don’t tell us we were given a fair shot.” The selected developer, Good Profits, was given many extensions and had no money to develop the Armory. Bramson replied, “There are two sides to every story.”
Despite repeated criticism by the people at this meeting, Bramson continued to maintain there was “universal support” in the City for this project. In late summer there will be a land disposition and final environmental impact statement. He cited a list of previous developments in the City he considered positive. A resident of Sutton Manor challenged Bramson by saying, “Nobody is in favor of this project.” At this point Paduano brought up that during his term of office, a “break-even” point chart was used for determining profits for a proposed development. Bramson answered, “The numbers are what they are.” He felt something was wrong if we all agreed.”
County Legislator James Maisano said Mayor Bramson had come out to speak to a “tough crowd.” He asked, “What’s the best use for this property for the City of New Rochelle?” Very few people feel rental apartments are the best use for the taxpayers of New Rochelle. Why would we think of going down that road again? Bramson answered the purpose was “not rental housing” but to open up the waterfront and create passive parkland.
Bramson, when later asked if he would bring this project to vote of the people in a referendum, said he “would not support a referendum.” He continued during the meeting making statements such as the city would be “better off with the project than without it.”
As the meeting continued past ll p.m. Guru Madeleine said these were “difficult times and hard decisions.” She felt reflection was needed and the City Council should not rush into this decision. To loud applause she said this decision “seems predetermined and we lose representative government, and have the beginnings of dictatorship.”
Bramson then spoke of the “enormous effort and time” that went into this project. He felt “lots of people are excited about this project.” Beth Acocella said council members represent the people and that residents felt they are being “railroaded” and are let down. Bramson concluded he had not “sugar coated” his views and did not feel this neighborhood would “have to take a bullet for the rest of the City.” He believes this project would benefit “more than this neighborhood.”
After the meeting Paduano said the city had been cited for being the second highest in the country for resident livability.