While I agree that maybe Nick isn't the best guy out there, he's the best out of the two running. I'm make it even simpler, a vote for Nick is a vote AGAINST ST. PAUL'S. Like how I yelled that?

I didn't move here for some moldy old building that has been dividing the community for what seems like 20 years. I moved here because it was a stable town with beautiful trees, a nice downtown, good public and private schools, nice parks and great access to shopping and trains.

Throwing money at this building is ludicrous and it seems as if all anyone really cares about is some pretentious BS that they can point to when they talk about their town. Or maybe they like to drive by it. Or maybe they just need a cause because the kids have moved away. At the very least that's my opinion on the subject and for some it's probably true.

I vote against St. Paul's.

Mr. Gary: How much would you commit the Village to spend to save St. Paul's? A dollar amount, please.

Has anyone moved to GC for ST Paul's. Would anyone move if it were gone?

There is no value in St Paul's other than a nice facade; in 17+ years, no one has figured out a specific use for it that is needed by the community. As a taxpayer, I would not even pay 1 cent for something neither I nor the community need and want.

St. Pauls IS NOT our DNA! It was a private prep school that wouldn't let us use the fields or facilities when it was open. It had NO INVOLVEMENT with the community when I was growing up. If we pour MILLIONS of dollar into it what are we going to use it for... to look at? We've tried a high schoool, village hall, & library and it was too costly.
Like it or not it's time has passed and it's too costly to save... unless the Committee wants to purchase it from the village. Oh wait, we can't do that unless the thanks to some short sighted people. TEAR IT DOWN and move on.

Mr. Schwieger, you want trustees who will look for a way to save all or part of the building for a reasonable cost and purpose? That is exactly what trustees Daughney and Episcopia are in favor of. Trustee Episcopia has publicly sought a study of reducing and stabilizing the building, either as a single project or in conjunction with a new rec center. Trustee Daughney, along with trustee DeMaro, has advocated a village-wide survey and study to start the conversation on such a rec center.

Am I right that I have heard you speak in favor of removing the building's wings at BoT meetings? That is on the table of we re-elect Brian and Nick. Under the CSSP's hand-picked candidates, who knows what they will commit us to.

What Nick and Brian are not in favor of is the CSSP plan, which Jon Segerdahl has publicly endorsed. That is because the CSSP plan is fundamentally unserious with respect to cost and expected results. These challengers are one-issue candidates, put up to this by the CSSP, who will commit us to a path of spending $50 million or more on that building. And why? Mr. Segerdahl says ideas will come to us later.

Jonathan, I think your views on St. Paul's exactly match up with trustees Episcopia and Daughney. I hope you'll try to see through the CSSP rhetoric and understand that they (along with trustees Quinn, DeMaro and Donnelly) are standing up for the same principles you are describing above. They want (1) a COMPLETE solution to the St. Paul's issue that (2) serves a WELL-DEFINED PURPOSE and (3) is AFFORDABLE.

An open-ended commitment, with a down-payment of $11 million and millions more to come, for no stated purpose, fails on all three counts. I hope you will support trustees Daughney and Episcopia in their work.

The bottomline is nothing has been done with anything in years (many issues, not just St. Pauls) because Nick Episcopia has been saying NO and not doing anything. It's time for a leadership change. Someone who will get things done and move this village in a positive direction. VOTE FOR JON SEGERDAHL!

Jonathan,
It's pointless to argue with these people, there is a reason they are on here all day. Because no one around them wants to listen to them anymore, ST Paul's is part of the DNA, that's why the village voted to keep it (not just the fields but the building) and that is why they voted not to level it. Let them fix the roof, then get with every civic organization (VFW, American Legion, AOH, Rotary, Free Masons, Knights of Columbus, etc.) within 5 miles together and see if its feasible for them to each have their own space in the building. Common areas shared with each other and the village residents. If we got enough of them nothing would have to be torn down.

In response to Seven -- there were many people complaining about the tax burden with regard to the school budget. Scary stories about seniors on fixed incomes being forced from their homes of the last 50 years if school taxes weren't reined in. I don't hear those people complaining about higher taxes due to bond service for St. paul's. But it's conceivable that a SP project would result in higher taxes, which could cause some people to relocate.

CIB, there you go again denigrating people with whom you disagree.

BTW, your comment has numerous grammatical errors in it.

GCRes1 are you serious? Didn't you already get caught lying and making false accusations and wind up apologizing to everyone somewhere as you’re smearing stuff all over this site. Do you realize how insane you look posting to other people to answer questions that aren't running for office! Wow! Everyone knows what the budget of the town is. No one is saying we are going to use the entire budget to save St. Paul's. Stop with the nonsense. I would like to see it saved if we can do it in a fiscally responsible way, preserve parts of it perhaps, have it generate some income (events, etc). People in this town don't understand the value of having such a magnificent historical site that Alexander Stewart (who founded this beautiful town in case you forgot) wife built for him when he passed. As well as The Cathedral, etc. These buildings are amazing, they are part of GC history,GC pride, separate us from any other town on LI and I think we HAVE A RESPONSIBITY to do all we can to try and preserve them. I don't see ANY movement with Nick. And I do know that Mr. SAGERDAHL will work better with others to work though actual solutions, not roadblock ALL of them for years. And not just St. Pauls. I also think JON has always had the best interest of the people and of course is not going to make decisions to drastically increase taxes. Another slanderous lie from you. I'm voting for JON. No matter what dribble you write, slanderous or not, I certainly will not listen to you.

Peter thanks for defending me on ResGC1 but it's not necessary. I already know It really is time for a change. I'm seeing downfall changes in this town which is sad and a lot of it has to do with Nick not wanting to work with others to come to resolutions. That's what I see. And for years now. I'm as frusterated as you are. I actually spoke with Mr. SEGERDAHL last week and he really understood my concerns (a lot of him where also his concerns) and not just St. Paul's. JON defintely will work hard to solve these issues responsibly and not just put up roadblocks and say NO to any idea, suggestion, strategy. All while things are falling apart around us with Nick sitting in office.

GCRes ,Veritas ,Nick ( same person)
What exactly is Nicks Plan for St Paul's? You speak of his views above, are these concrete plans or something he scribbled on a napkin at Leo's ? Secondly if they are concrete how much exactly will it cost the taxpayers? Demo + rebuilding a new rec center sounds costly as well. How long will it take? Just like you I want exact numbers. If that plan includes demolition, whether partial or full how does Nick plan to get the people of GC's support considering the previous vote was so strongly against Tax payers funding demolition? (75% to 25%) How is spending over 200k on "studies regarding demolition" fiscally responsible when the vote was very one sided, “NO” to have tax payers pay demolition. Perhaps a preliminary poll should have been conducted that might have saved the village a good amount of money. Since the people are undecided on what to do exactly with St Paul's shouldn’t the current trustee's (5 for demo , 3 for preservation) keep St Paul's condition up to par. (one can argue both sides of the coin on that... if the vote is for demo then we wasted money with repairs , if the vote is to restore then it will cost us more because we let St Paul’s condition deteriorate). Also on that point by letting its condition worsen doesn’t that serve the agenda of those for demolition? That seems like a misuse of power, meaning the idea to let it rot will eventually change the residents minds for supporting demo.

Lastly a donation is made for repairs in order to preserve such ideals discussed above (keeping things on par), well Nick and his fellow cronies rejected the donation. I am unclear how that serves any positive purpose except to push the swing voters to favor demolition due to its visible condition. GCres1 we all know you are passionate about your candidate and I applaud that, but constantly going on the offensive and responding to every single person who differs from your opinion is getting really old... (let me guess , your next questions… how much is Jon willing to spend exact dollar amount ? Well I am not Jon so I can’t answer that. How much am I willing to spend well $10 to $20 a month is something I can live with personally for a good cause. (that is me and by no way reflects the actual proposals, so don’t twist words like you usually do) Is Peter Negri financing the campaign, I don’t think so, but then again I don’t have access to Jon’s bank records so cant accurately answer that. However what money would he need from Peter? Perhaps your referring to those “glossy flyers” ,last time I checked they cost about 50 bucks at Kinko’s . We know Nick wouldn’t splurge on that.

You didn't answer the majority of my questions. How much would your unviversity style rec center cost?

Plus you state 50 million for complete renovation.  Seems like the tippy top of the cost spectrum.  Several studies evaluating costs for restoration have been done.  Choosing the one that favors the highest projection also suits your argument. Run your numbers again off the low end of the spectrum and tell us what you get.  Don't forget to include potential revenue accrued by the new structure.   

I didn't understand most of your initial questions. If you re-state them, I'll take a swing at them.

When you describe a spectrum of costs, what are you referring to? I am referring to the FEIS, which found a cost range of 30-50 million, not to make a public building, but just to remediate its many issues so it COULD be a public building. I think 50 million is fair.

And if the renovated St. Paul's is going to generate revenue, great. How? In answering that question, you can also answer the great question of all: what will we use it for? I know, trust in Jon Segerdahl and "ideas will come.".

On your first question, I have NO idea how much a "university-quality" rec center costs. Truth is, I just made that term up. But I assume 50 million would get us something quite nice. Do you disagree?

Huh  30 to 50 the range  and 50 is fair?   Not sure how that works.  And this is for full restoration correct?    Ok so perhaps re-run your figures off the lower side of your estimate 30 million just for kicks.   And while your at it why not run the numbers using the CSSP first floor and chapel restoration plan. Use 15 mill to be safe ( I think they suggested 11 mill).   Looks like that 20 bucks a month is going a long way now.  

Secondly 
Possible uses 
Well let's see. It has a chapel, a kitchen and two parlor rooms.  Perhaps an event space for events such as weddings.  Average wedding in the united states cost 26k. Garden city is not the average town so I would assume we could fetch higher number than the average venue cost.  Anywhere between 15 to 20k might be a safe assumption. That is including site fee , food and staffing.   Much cheaper option than our country clubs.   Again just spit balling ideas with you.  That is just one idea ,  I think the CSSP has a list a mile long.     Something our current trustees might want to consider.  It is  ideas that Jon is open to not vehemently against.  That is the main difference btw candidates willingness to hear the people and entertain possible solutions. 

Trojan: Read the FEIS. The best estimate just to bring the building up to code, as an empty white box, is $30-50 million. I am using the high end of that range, but not adding any additional costs for actually adapting it for a use. Adapting it could cost many millions (depending on the use). So, and this is only one example, your wedding hall is going to need a full commercial kitchen suitable for feeding hundreds of people. That can cost hundreds of thousands, I would think. Or were you going to rely on the existing kitchen?

I think it is silly to use any figures derived from the CSSP plan because the CSSP plan itself is silly . . . it is a few renovated rooms nestled inside the rotting outer shell of the building. You want your daughter getting married in that? I'll take City Hall.

No . . . I'll stick with $50 million, because I think it is a reasonable and defensible figure.

Now, as to uses: The CSSP has a list a mile long? Really? Have they shared that list? I'd like to review it. Maybe it would give Jon Segerdahl some of those ideas he's eagerly awaiting, so he can share one of them with the voters.

GCRes1 - try to understand that A LOT of people are in favor of Mr. SEGERDAHL. We want leadership and at least he has a vision. You don't need to ramble on. JON will work with others that are tired of NICK saying NO to everything. Mr.SEGERDAHL at LEAST has goal, a direction and this is FROM THE RESIDENTS. He actually listens and will DO SOMETHING! He will work hard to get there financially, whether its St. Paul's and all the other issues we are now having. I do agree with Trojan that NICK is NOT doing much of anything. Trojan, also, I did think of the same similar idea for St. Paul's. Its a pretty good one.

Yeah we got it you don’t want to spend an extra 20 bucks a month.. But you are for partial demolition or for demolition and for the building a new rec center. But we are all still unclear of that cost cause you have not provided one. AGAIN what are your COSTS.. Stop arguing with everyone and answer the question.. Your argue strongly against the CSSP plan but provide no cost analysis of your plan for partial or full demo + building a new rec center. Not sure what your trying to accomplish except an attempt to save Nick’s position by responding to literally every single post...

I sort of agree with Trojan that responding to every post isn't really doing anything but shouting at a wall at this point. To everyone asking "what's your idea", it doesn't matter because we're not running. Proving someone who supports one candidate over another doesn't have their own St. Paul's plan is kind of silly and has nothing to do with the run-off. Also, this fixation on Peter Negri as the grand puppet master seems a little off kilter. Yeah, he has money and is the CSSP dude but he's not all powerful because if he was we wouldn't be having this exchange right now.

Hopefully which ever person gets elected will do the right thing and come up with a compromise that we can all live with.

Jack, that was well stated. I also agree with Trojan. GCRes1, please just stop. Mr. Negri is a well respected man. Saying this is his own personal vanity campaign is so absurd . Mr. Negri is a supporter of Jon Segerdahl. I'm voting for Jon as well. I believe it's the best proactive direction this town can make.