On behalf of the present Town Board and its predecessor, I feel it necessary to correct the appalling misrepresentations that have been made about the process involving the very complicated and detailed review of the proposal known as Chappaqua Crossing.

In particular, I take personal umbrage at the statement made by the ill-informed that the Town Board only took up the issue of the Town’s commercial base “late in the review.” To the absolute contrary, at the Board’s December 12, 2006 meeting, in which the original Summit Greenfield application for a zoning change to permit 348 residential units was rejected, I addressed their counsel with the following concerns:

“Our Master Plan really talks about this being the major commercial site in the Town of New Castle outside of the hamlets.  There isn’t any other place for such commercial tax base.  North Castle has done phenomenal commercial planning, and they have managed to keep their taxes down, which is a trade-off.  This is the last piece of commercial property and it is a very unique piece of property strategically located near the high school, near the highway, and Route 117.” Emphasis supplied, see Minutes of that 2006 Town Board meeting.

Mr. Felix Charney of Summit Greenfield was in the audience, and he responded, that if the Town wants commercial, then Summit Greenfield would do commercial. They know how to do commercial. The Town Board made itself extremely clear that a rezoning to remove such a huge portion of our commercial base was unacceptable.

Fast forward to October 6, 2009, and I, now Supervisor, noted the Planning Board was concerned with the demolition of Building 600, and there was discussion with Summit Greenfield about not demolishing Building 600, and instead getting commercial rental income from the building.  Planning Board Chair Susan Carpenter indicated a preference for avoiding all the environmental impacts of demolition.

When Summit Greenfield returned with their Draft FEIS in July 2010, they touted that fact that it preserved the 600 building, saying that “the modified project, with its increased commercial space, … responds effectively to community and Town Board concerns….” Executive Summary, Page I-2.That assertion was repeated in the October 2010 draft FEIS. See the Executive Summary, Page I-2.

There was never any confusion or doubt on the part of either the Town Board or Summit Greenfield that the commercial base of the Town was of paramount importance. Any reference to “fiasco” indicates at best a complete disconnect between the events and the eventual outcome of the detailed and procedurally correct review, and at worst an irresponsible pandering for votes with untruths that can only undermine the Town’s currently excellent position in Summit Greenfield’s lawsuit against the Town.

In addition, will someone who talks of Summit Greenfield’s supposed right to “better treatment, ” please explain to me all the talk about not permitting landlords or tenants to let or sublet their commercial property at the highest rents they can obtain? Do these fans of Summit Greenfield intend to establish commercial rent control in the hamlets? Are they seriously going to tell D’Agostino’s that it must accept less rent per square foot in rental from a grocery store than it can get from a drug store? Because that is what every commercial real estate broker will tell you. Drugstores pay more per square foot than grocery stores. Period. And do those individuals know that without Albany’s permission (called enabling legislation), no town has the authority to impose rent restrictions or to give real estate tax abatements anyway? Do those individuals understand the issue of property rights? Do they want the Town to be sued left and right for inconsistent policies?

I am not running for office, but I have worked diligently with the entire Town Board for the past four years to have a progressive government, one of fairness, encouraging local businesses wherever and whenever the Town had the authority to do so. The entire parking lot behind Bank of America has been renovated with 18 additional spaces; the long-term bridge project will be ended for all intents and purposes on November 23 – just a few weeks away – and with it goes the traffic jams and parking issues in the train station lot that have frustrated many. But in its wake we will have a brand-new expanse, with no more of the rust leakage, crumbling roadbeds and structural insecurity we had as late as 2007, but in fact a structure enhancing our hamlet’s aesthetics. We anticipate shopping will be renewed at an accelerated pace in time for the holidays.

We have been fiscally responsible in the most challenging financial three years since the Great Depression, and the projected tax increase for the average New Castle residence of $49 for the year 2012 is responsible and respectful of the hardships we know our residents face. For three years straight an average tax increase of less than $50 a year, when pensions and health insurance have outstripped inflation, and our revenues have eroded dramatically, is something we would hope the Town’s residents would recognize as our dedication to preserving the value of their most important investment, their homes.

Given all of the above, I respectfully request that the residents review the past accomplishments and vote to continue the policies of fiscal responsibility, hamlet streetscape enhancements, open and non-partisan government -- even Assemblyman Robert Castelli said just a few weeks ago on camera that our Town Board serves its Town residents in the most responsible, apolitical way --that has served this Town so dedicatedly, and whose current candidates are committed to continue to do so ---Carpenter, Mottel, and Chapin for Supervisor and Town Board, and Kraus and Zuckerman for Town Justices.

Barbara S. Gerrard