Opinion: FASNY: Where's the transparency???

What’s happening with the City’s FASNY review? WP residents are looking for transparency and answers. . .as all the FASNY related negatives won’t go away. . .and this FASNY project will cause much harm to residents and our community.

Dear Mayor and Common Council,

For the past 4+ years of changing FASNY development plans for the old Ridgeway Golf Course property. . .the common theme has been FASNY’s incomplete due diligence, inaccurate information and lack of realistic solutions.

If FASNY and the City Staff are again working together on “new project revisions”. . .our questions below must be addressed in any Site Plan Revisions or Supplemental SEQR Submissions. . .so that “solutions” are developed to eliminate the impact of all the FASNY negatives and unsolved problems that were evident in their prior plan submissions.

The past 4+ years have shown that with each FASNY plan revision. . .WP residents have identified more problems and negatives with FASNY’s project. And the FASNY negatives are many. . . 10-year Construction, Noise, Pollution, Significant Traffic Increases, the Flawed North Street Entrance, the Closure of Hathaway Lane with Increased Emergency Response Times, More Water in Basements, Dumping Carcinogenic Herbicides, Loss of Open Space, Threats to the Environment, Zoning Issues, Declining Property Values and other negatives. . .all of which have not been properly evaluated in the City’s FASNY Review process.

Addressing the following questions in future FASNY plan revisions and Common Council deliberations will add transparency and determine if FASNY themselves has developed realistic solutions to offset all of their own created negatives.

On the Rule of Law:
1. Will the Mayor’s statement at the SEQR Findings Meeting of December 19, 2013. . .that all Common Council Members “are bound by the law”. . .be the guiding principal for the review of this FASNY project?
2. Do Common Council Members have a fiduciary responsibility to follow and enforce WP laws in order to protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of all citizens?
3. Has FASNY commented on the 1925 Restrictive Covenant. . .and has the City’s outside legal consultant provided an opinion on the 1925 Covenant as well as Implied Restrictive Covenants?
4. Should the City and residents believe FASNY’s proposed Restrictive Covenants for the Conservancy. . .if FASNY itself doesn’t believe in the validly of the original 1925 Restrictive Covenants?
5. Has FASNY demonstrated how their “53-acre private regional school campus” fits with the Rule of Law, R1-30 Zoning, the Special Permit process, the Comprehensive Plan and other WP laws as written?
6. If the FASNY project does not fit with the single-family-home Character of our residential neighborhood. . .will the Health, Safety and Welfare of WP residents be protected?
7. If residential home owners purchased property with the expectation that our Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and other WP Laws as written were in place to protect our homes, streets and Quality of Life . . .does FASNY’s latest plan offer less protection for resident property, our streets and our community?

On FASNY Traffic Increases:
8. From the start of the FASNY SEQR review process. . .have FASNY and the City Staff ever stated existing Traffic conditions in the Southend of WP correctly?
9. Has FASNY solved their planned massive Traffic increases resulting from their 950 students and 250 staff, mostly from communities outside of WP, adding over 2,000 Vehicle Trips each day to our country-style streets without sidewalks?
10. Has FASNY been allowed to misrepresent the Traffic counts their project will bring into the Southend with their “530 number”. . .when outside Traffic professionals cannot even understand how their “530 number” is calculated?
11. If the intersections of North Street at Bryant and at Ridgeway as well as the intersections of Mamaroneck Avenue at Ridgeway, Heatherbloom and Bryant already account for some of the highest Traffic accident totals. . .won’t these totals go up when you add all of FASNY’s additional cars and buses?
12. As the Mayor pointed out. . .does the FASNY Phase I Cap of 750 students make any sense?
13. In view of the Flawed North Street Entrance. . .has FASNY come up with “solutions” to eliminate the Board of Education’s Traffic concerns with regard to the Safety of WP School Children?
14. If prior misguided Mitigations by FASNY and the City Staff made Traffic worse with the Flawed North Street Entrance and recommended Closure of Hathaway Lane. . .has the City Staff tested their new Traffic ideas with a sample of impacted neighborhood residents?

On the Closure of Hathaway Lane:
15. Has FASNY given up its plan of asking the City to Close Hathaway Lane, a Public street, that will increase Emergency Response Times to resident homes and take away the only neighborhood North-South access between Bryant Avenue and Ridgeway Avenue?
16. Has FASNY presented any benefits for the Public. . .for Closing Hathaway Lane, a Public Street?
17. Hasn’t the Public’s right-of-way for Hathaway Lane existed continuously for over 90 years. . .while being well-maintained with tax payments from the Public?
18. Isn’t Hathaway Lane well-traveled with the latest Traffic counts showing over 800 cars on average per day?
19. Wouldn’t the Closure of Hathaway Lane deprive neighborhood residents of the most reasonable access for heading to the Hutchinson River Parkway Northbound. . .and isn’t it contrary to the policy of preserving the existing right-of-way for connectivity?
20. Over the past 35 years haven’t the only 2 street closures in WP residential areas (at Woodlands Place and also at the end of Havilands Lane) reduced neighborhood Traffic, made living conditions Safer and strengthened Property Values. . .while closing Hathaway Lane brings in FASNY’s massive Traffic increase, makes living conditions worse and lowers Property Values?
21. Doesn’t Hathaway Lane as it’s used today fit perfectly with the City’s Complete Streets Policy. . .which protects pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers including School Children, Seniors and persons with disabilities?
22. Wouldn’t closing Hathaway Lane allow FASNY to combine 2 parcels of their property to increase its market value going forward. . .and in the process allow FASNY to add unapprovable Accessory Uses in Parcel D to get around the Special Permit process altogether?

On 10-Year Construction:
23. Is FASNY’s 10 years of Construction the right thing to do in a residential neighborhood. . .particularly when the primary reason FASNY is dragging out the Construction is their lack of enough Money?
24. If the German School Administrator Ed Schlieben admits that right now their current 4-acre expansion project looks like a “nuclear wasteland” (WP Daily Voice, May 8. 2015). . .shouldn’t all of our elected officials reject FASNY’s 53-acre construction which is projected to last 10 years in a residential area?
25. Has the destruction of property in a residential area with the German School’s expansion work shown. . .that different Construction regulations and restrictions are needed for residential neighborhoods than downtown areas. . .in particular that removing 100-year old trees and replacing them with new saplings. . .is not a “1 to 1 swap”?

On Money Concerns:
26. Has FASNY certified that they have the Money on-hand. . . to fund their 53-acre regional school campus. . .so their project is not left partially completed in the middle of a residential neighborhood?

On Noise and Pollution:
27. If FASNY’s Noise and Pollution change the Environment. . .will the Health, Safety and Welfare of WP residents be made worse during FASNY’s prolonged 10-year building activities?

On the Loss of Open Space:
28. If FASNY will be building on 53 acres of current Open Space grassland. . .are they really giving the City and its residents Open Space?
29. If White Plains is proud to have a “Tree City USA” designation. . .is anyone concerned about FASNY removing 100-year old trees that clean the air, filter the water, soak up stormwater and reduce the carbon footprint?

On the Shrinking Conservancy:
30. Hasn’t the real size of the Conservancy in FASNY’s Revised Site Plans been reduced. . .if paved roadways are running through the Conservancy to the North Street Entrance?
31. Does FASNY’s right of first refusal to the City. . .prevent FASNY from selling off parcels of Conservancy land in the future to get cash for fundraising?

On Water Problems:
32. If FASNY is allowed to build foundations that disrupt underground streams and construct their 53-acre campus over Open Space grassland that currently absorbs rainwater. . .will FASNY or the City be providing insurance and guarantees for neighborhood homes that will be in danger from water damage?
33. If trees absorb water. . .doesn’t FASNY removing 300 of our 100-year old trees make water conditions worse before their Construction even starts!
34. Will FASNY’s planned artificial turf sports fields produce lead and other chemical stormwater run-offs?

On Threats to the Environment:
35. With regard to the Conservancy. . .has FASNY eliminated their planned dumping of carcinogenic herbicides and pesticides near resident homes?
36. Doesn’t FASNY’s 3,000 foot-long “Entrance Road from Hell” near NYS designated environmentally sensitive land. . .make a mockery of the Conservancy and Open Space preservation?

On Declining Property Values:
37. If real estate professionals considered FASNY’s 10-year Construction, 53-acre massive school campus and the impact of additional Traffic as causing permanent reductions in Property Values. . .has FASNY’s latest plan revisions improved the outlook for current residential Property Values?

On the City of White Plains:
38. Doesn’t the future of our City depend on our elected leaders protecting residents and their neighborhoods?
39. If 8 Neighborhood Associations, the WP School Board, the Conservation Board, the Planning Board and the residents in the Southend of the City. . .all have spoken out against FASNY’s intrusion into our community. . .does the City know something that the rest of us in the Southend do not?
40. Has the Common Council asked enough challenging and probing questions of FASNY during the Public Meetings. . .particularly on the largest building project ever proposed for a WP residential neighborhood?
41. For the City Staff. . .have all the FOIL requests from residents been responded to. . .and have all Common Council member questions on FASNY been answered?
42. Is it right that a few members of the City Staff have been working behind the scenes helping FASNY. . .while residents were being denied transparency with up-to-date information?
43. And is it right for a few members of the City Staff going out of their way helping FASNY to misrepresent Traffic, WP Zoning & other Laws. . .while their salaries are being supported by resident tax payments?
44. Is it right for City Department reports and analyses to be critiqued and summarized for the Common Council by consultants whose fees may be paid by FASNY. . .without disclosing the details of these contractual relationships?
45. Are there ethics laws covering City employees requiring the disclosure of relationships, sources of income and any “quid pro quo” promises with outside organizations doing business with the City?

On FASNY:
46. Has FASNY demonstrated how their project would be more beneficial than the alternative of residential housing. . .which would be allowed under current Zoning. . .would result in less Traffic. . .and would provide property tax revenue?
47. After so many FASNY project plan changes. . .does FASNY right now have all of their final plan details in one submission?
48. With regard to FASNY’s 10-year Construction, Noise, Pollution, Significant Traffic Increases, the Flawed North Street Entrance, the Closure of Hathaway Lane with Increased Emergency Response Times, More Water in Basements, Dumping Carcinogenic Herbicides, Loss of Open Space, Threats to the Environment, Zoning Issues, Declining Property Values and other negatives. . .has enough mitigation been attempted?
49. If FASNY moves into a residential neighborhood where upfront they know their regional school campus does not fit with existing Zoning. . .and from day one declares that they will not contribute property taxes to support City services. . . then does not maintain their property up to the level of surrounding private homes who do pay property taxes. . .or at the least try to follow the lead of nearby non-profits such as Burke and NY Hospital’s policy of having their grounds blend in with the neighboring community. . .does anyone believe that FASNY will transform into a good neighbor in the future?
50. With any proposed FASNY new plan changes. . .are the facts accurate, the commentary truthful. . .and have “solutions” been introduced to eliminate all the FASNY negatives?

Looking at the Big Picture we believe this FASNY project just has too many negatives to be overcome. . .despite all the efforts of the FASNY Representatives and some on the City Staff to do so.
The future of our City depends on our elected leaders protecting residents and their neighborhoods. . .as our Mayor and Common Council all campaigned for when you ran for the office you now hold. If you address our questions and consider the facts in all future FASNY discussions and new plan revisions. . .you will have more than enough evidence for voting “no” on FASNY.

Thanks in advance for considering these questions in your FASNY deliberations,

Your Truth Police, Team Rhodes

Marie and Ron Rhodes

P.S. For simplicity we grouped our questions by category and structured each to require just a yes or no response. . .and in the spirit of transparency forwarded a copy of our questions to the City’s outside counsel Steve Silverberg.