John
Thanks for submitting this letter.
I would agree that having experience is very important and its clear to me that Trustee Daughney has this wherby his unknown challenger does not. And further, aside from a letter posted here, we have no idea as to what she stands for or what she would do differently than him.

Brian Daughney is a thoughtful,intelligent and hard working trustee. Brian has in a very short time become a leader on the board. He has been instrumental in keeping taxes reasonable while maintaining village services. It was Brian who championed insurance reform and departmental consolidation. He has saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands in real budget dollars and promoted departmental consolidations which will reap benifits in the future.
Vote for Brian next Tuesday. He is a trustee with integrity.

Brian I saw your ad in the GC news.  "hold onto your wallet". Claiming a vote for the challengers would extremely hurt the taxpayers . The current proposal by the CSSP would cost the tax payers about 8-15$ per month . Maybe that is too much in your mind which is fair.   You do claim to be  passionate about keeping costs down so I  am curious how you  will answer the following.   How much is your recreation center at St Paul's going to cost?( answer: very costly)  Secondly how are those " studies" on a recreation center  being paid for? ( answer: tax payers)    If you are claiming that full demolition or partial demolition plus the creation of a new recreation center will cost less than the current CSSP  plan I think you're full of it.   Personally I think your recreation center is all smoke and mirrors. Just come out and say you are pro demolition and since you couldn't  pass that bond referendum  (voted down 75% to 25%) you thought making up a recreation center idea would appease the swing voters for now.   Brian the only way to keep costs down with regards to St Paul's is to do exactly what you have been doing NOTHING and letting it rot.  That is why you rejected a donation specifically given for repairs. One more time Brian?   Are you a liar ( meaning a vote for you hits the wallet just as harder or harder) and are for a costly recreation center or are you for doing nothing and letting St Paul' rot jeopardizing our town's property value even further? VOTE HARRINGTON

Trojan4Life - Two things to conclude from your post 1. Your candidate is solely in this to drive the St. Paul's/CSSP agenda, 2. Very easy to call someone else a liar when you are a nameless blogger without courage to identify yourself. Oh - and right, Brian and John Demaro proposed an alternative use/recreation center idea 6 or more months ago in anticipation of a "surprise" challenger in the Estates Trustee race. Well thought out. Brian is a serious trustee and the right person for the job. He's independent, accomplished and concerned about ALL residents, not just those with a hidden or not so hidden agenda.

So he is for a costly recreation center? Doesn't his ad in the gcnews hold no water now ?

Quote from his add " After more than fifteen years of failed plans, unworkable proposals, and a decisive vote not to spend any money on the building there are some people determined to put self-interest above the best interest of the rest of us".  Brian is describing himself which is laughable.  A proposed rec center with what support behind it ?  Two people vs a committee with hundreds of supporters.  Who has self interest in that scenario. How can he support  building a recreation center ( unknown costs and support)  when he makes the above statements.  Fight all you want Matt but you are just wrong on this one.

Trojan:

Let's separate the St. Paul's issue from any alternative proposals for the site for a moment. The CSSP plan is unworkable and shouldn't be considered, let alone praised, by any serious person. One should consider a vote for either challenger to be a vote for the CSSP Plan, because that is the ONLY reason they are running.

As for alternatives for the site, Brian Daughney would be the first to tell you there are no great options, certainly no cheap options. All the cheap options involved finding a private partner (e.g. Avalon Bay), and the CSSP succeeded in completely poisoning public opinion regarding that.

Trustees Daughney and DeMaro have proposed STUDYING a rec center. Their approach to a problem has several advantages over the way the CSSP goes about things. First, they ask "Do we want this at all?" THEN, see if it is feasible, affordable and supported by residents, after a full presentation of costs and risks. If it can clear all of those hurdles, proceed.

In other words, the opposite of the CSSP plan. The CSSP starts by saying we "must" save it. It dodges all the tough questions. Too expensive? Only do $10 million worth now, we'll get the rest later. No reason to do it in the first place? Tell people it is our "DNA," whatever that means. Not supported by residents? Cook the books, underestimate the costs, overestimate the benefits.

It is just funny that your candidate attacks the Challengers for trying to save St Paul's on the basis its going to hurt their wallets.  But then suggest studies ( at tax payees expense) mind you already 1 million dollars wasted on that under Brian and Nick.    Then you defend the methodology to which they tackle the problem.  Conduct a poll ( haven't seen one  at it's been 6 months) then a study ( at tax payer expense) and then build if affordable ( which you just stated above isn't possible.) Sorry  demo plus rec center or partial demo + rec center is well north of 11 million.   The definition of insanity is repeating the same event and expecting a different outcome.( study that St Paul's will be cheap) That is what your championing and more so claiming that if you vote for Brian your wallet won't be hurt the same or more.  Entirely untrue unless you concede you waste money on a study that proves St Pauls is costly and choose to do nothing with St Pauls and let it fall apart on it's own .

Lastly the DNA statement.  You seem intelligent so assuming you know the definition of DNA.  A building that was constructed as a memorial to our founding father Alexander T Stewart should have some significance to every Garden City resident.  It's part of the make - up of being a garden city resident because it is an important part of our history.  More important our founders history.  

GcRes1 this is in response to your previous post. I think you need to re-read my earlier posts above,  that is not what I am saying at all.   What I am saying is that Brian shouldn't criticize his challengers for hurting tax payers with St Paul's when he himself is exploring similar costly options.  A dumbed down example would be criticizing you in public for buying a brand new car because it is expensive then due research on new cars and buy one myself even though the costs are the same. It's hypocritical GRes1.  This is regarding Brian's ad in the gcnews.  So you might want to reference that

Ok what the hell, I'll  blow up your awesome hypothetical  rec center plan .  We had a vote for tax payers to pay for demolition  of St Paul's and  75% to 25% voted No for tax payers to carry that burden.  Well let's examine that, two possible results can be inferred . 1) The CSSP will say people want to save St Paul's 2)  You will say the people didn't want to pay for demolition.   So if we follow the second result the one  you probably agree with, how then are you going to convince residents to not just demolish St Pauls ( something voted strongly against because of "costs" but also tack on more costs for a new recreation center.      Go back and really examine that vote 75 to 25   . Either answer you respond with  disqualifies your hypothetical rec center. Are we all suppose to assume that Garden City is in desperate need of a recreation center that will be very costly?  Think you need to wake up it is the building itself the residents care about!

Trojan4life, you keep using the term hypothetical which also can be applied to the CSSP'S plan and it cost analysis. It has been shown, even by their own consultants, that their projected costs are way off the mark. In fact at a public meeting, which I attended, Mr. Negri stated that the $10 or $11 million would only be a starting point and that much more money would have to be spent going forward. I do not believe that the taxpayers want to be placed on a perpetual wheel of higher and higher costs and taxes with no end in sight. This is a building looking for a need where no need exist.

I think the theory is a rec center albeit, at considerable costs, will benefit far more residents than a fully restored St. Paul's building in it's current form. That is hard to argue with. For $50 to $70 mil we get 1) a rec center or 2) a beautiful building with lots of rooms. If GC is going to spend the money, and I don't think either way is wise in the current economy, the choice is clearly a rec center.

Ray, I agree with most of what you write above. Currently Brian Daughney and Nick Episcopia are working on getting a proposal - What will it cost to convert St. Paul's in to a Rec center and save the building and what would it cost to knock it down and start from scratch with a brand new Rec Center. After getting these figures I am sure they will listen to what the residents say they want. Pesonally if we could build a new complete rec center for a bond 10 - 15 million dollars I would be in favor of it. That would add about $100 - $150 per house hold in taxes. The interest rates are cheap and now is the time to do such a project. The idea to spend the same amount of money to have 10,000 square feet does not make sense to me (but if it makes sense to most people in GC then I woud have to live with it). Also if the cost came in at 30 or 40 million I would not be in favor of it.
I do think that you and Ron did have an impact on getting the Trustees to start to cut back on personell costs and get more money in the Capital Budget. They started to do that last year and I believe you will see even more of that trend this year.

Once again guys that is not achievable.  Your first scenario partial resoration and building a brand new recreation center or conversion of St Paul's  will be severly north of 15 million.  If you can create a recreation center inside St Paul's  without changing its outside appearance and keep costs below 11 million I would side with you .  The reason the CSSP is not for that is because it is a complete Fantasy. They have already explored such options for the interior while keeping cost reasonable and it is not possible. Remember the library idea.     According to the FEIS study and appendix M which you all love to quote your plan would involve similar costs to full restoration making the building structurally stable and avoiding further deterioration.  So  you think 50 million? Try north of that. Onto your full demolition theory plus building a new recreation center.  Let's say that will cost 10 million.  If you couldn't get the first part of that plan agreed (demo  voted down 75% to 25% ). Then how do you expect to pass it again. You think the idea of a uneeded recreation center will swing votes.  Sorry I don't believe that.

We can agree that the two potential plans on the table will be extremely costly?  Wether your for a 50 mill rec center plus some form of St Paul's.  Or for a 50 million dollar full restoration ( with  office space to be rented, events be held , concerts real revenue generating ability ect)   It is a personal preference but considering one movement (CSSP) has hundreds of supporters and your recreation center is just an idea you really can't claim you have more support.   Lastly as mentioned each option is costly.  Back to my original point, don't you think it's extremely hypocritical for Brian and Nick to attack the challengers on spending?  When they are walking down the same path.  The only problem is the CSSP has as already walked and dealt with every road block your two candidates hurled at them.   

Trojan4Life - Again, hypocritical, liar, complete fantasy etc. Is that all you can do -- insult people who volunteer their time for the Village? Ray and others identify themselves and make arguments. We might not always agree but Ray presents ideas and is respectful. Brian and Nick are looking into alternatives for St. Paul's as opposed to committing to spending $12M with no plan for next steps (other than go back to GC taxpayers for more money). Brian is measured about the issue, which is what you want in a trustee. Next Tuesday, there is one clear choice for voters in the Estates and the East who are concerned about where our tax dollars go and how those dollars are spent: Brian Daughney and Nick Episcopia.

I think there are some great articles and comments here in the Garden City Patch as well as the ads and informative letters to the editor in the Garden City News (for both incumbents as well as the challengers). I hope people spend the time to obtain this background, talk to their neighbors, decide with an informed opinion and then vote. There is a lot of talk about St Pauls which only valids for me that the election is about St Pauls. The village has never seriously considered a recreation/community center and I'm glad there is an attempt to do so by Brian Daughney, JohnDeM, NickE et others. To say there isn't interest in a rec center isn't true. I received over 250 signatures in support of looking at a rec/com center in less than four hours. I don't know why anyone who would want to save St Paul's would be against the effort. For me, it is clearly better to spend tens of millions on a community center than it is to spend tens of millions to mothball the building. In the end, the residents who said don't spend any monies to demolish (not the same as save) may say don't spend any money for a rec center either. We should try or do we continue the decades long stalemate of no resolution. When the $11k repairs are mentioned, it brings back the memory of the $100k grant we had courtesy of Kemp Hannon for a fence. It took months of back&forth to agree but we ended up with the beautiful fence that you see today next to the fields along Stewart Ave. Please vote for Brian

John I think you have some fair points regarding how the people should be educated on this upcoming vote . If you don’t mind I would just like to comment on a few things you said, "For me, it is clearly better to spend tens of millions on a community center than it is to spend tens of millions to mothball the building." That is your personal opinion and your entitled to it, but I don’t think the end would be a mothballed St Paul's ( a recreation center that provides facilities GC has an abundance of ie gym ect. while destroying a piece of history doesn’t seem better. MY opinion).
Also you wrote "In the end, the residents who said don't spend any monies to demolish not the same as save) may say don't spend any money for a rec center either". I agree , they may not want to spend money on any cost which leaves both ideas dead in the water and I can accept that.

Lastly I agree you should try and raise money and funds to support the rec idea. I think that is proactive and I for one would encourage that, but why would your candidate then bash the challengers for trying to the same thing? Just because there plan isn’t the best in your eyes. Their plan is just like your rec center , its an attempt to do something. I am not bashing their attempts for a solution, I was attacking your candidates for being hypocritical and misleading. If you think that a recreation center won’t be costly that is false. You know it will be, your candidates supporters admit to that even on previous posts . The choice would be between two expensive plans (and as said its a preference) but attacking the challengers on the issue of costs when both options are costly is completely hypocritical. That would be as if the CSSP came out and said “hang onto to your wallets Brain and Nick’ recreation plan will hurt the Garden City tax payers” though it might hold truthful in some aspects is hypocritical . Its comical guys come on.. I am glad also to see you ran out to get 250 signatures for the recreation center idea what was your selling pitch “ hey you don’t want St Paul’s demolished right “ something Nick and Brian originally wanted, “ how about a recreation center with no estimate on costs yet , how does that sound “ I could get 2000 signatures in 5 min on facebook with that pitch.

Trojan4Life, I agree with you. And how is Brian going to pay for these studies? Brian seem misleading and honestly nothing ever gets done. A lot of talk, no action. I'm voting for Harrington.

Brian’s studies for this recreation center will come out of the taxpayers pocket, just like last time when Nick and Brian used over 1million dollars of taxpayers money on St Paul’s studies (spent money on blocking CSSP proposals). At least the CSSP has raised funds to conduct their studies as to not burden the tax payer. Maybe Brian and Nick should create a committee to build a recreation center . (CBRC) raise their own funds conduct their own studies and present their proposal against the obstructionist members of the BOT who at the time were full heartily pushing for demolition (which was voted down in a land slide by the residents) I would say goooooood luck . The amount of hypocrisy is unreal..

I'm sure the residents are so happy to hear that Nick and Brian are draining over 1 million dollars of taxes payers money in reserves and then claiming they haven't raised taxes. It's so misleading when you look behind the curtain. And still no results but a rotting town. I'm so over this year after year, nothing being done. Stall, stall, stall. I'm voting for Harrington and Segerdahl. It's time for a new direction to get this village back on track.

Ok Now your reasoning and "facts" are totally off. Lets be clear, the 1.0mm+ was spent over the last 18 years primarily to heat an light a building that is vacant. These funds were approved and spent by all trustees during that time period, not by Nick and Brian over the last 6 years. In fact Brian and Nick opposed spending the 140K+ per year to heat the building for the past two years so they actually saved at least that amount. Not knowing this and commenting otherwise just adds to your ignorance. Also, still waitign to understand what "gained clearance" means as it related to Harrington and whay she did not seek the position in the past. Does that clearance come with lots of free time? Why not just come out and say you are for supporting the CSSP in general as you would gain so much more credibility. Your on here supporting a challenger who has been a director for nine years but has served on zero village committies but has coached soccer and all of a sudden the "I want to be a trustee" lightbulb came on? Are you serious?

Voters need to remember one thing: a vote for Mr. Segerdahl or Ms. Harrington is a vote for the CSSP's plan for St. Paul's. If you think it is a good idea to spend $10 million to renovate 8% of that building . . . if you think the expenditure is worth it, and you can't think of anything else you would rather we spend that money on, go ahead and vote for these two challengers. Because if Segerdahl and Harrington are elected, the FIRST order of business is to move forward on the CSSP plan.

John Ertle
That is a complete fabrication glad to see you also make up numbers. There was 1.9 million in reserves in 2005 slated for St Paul's in a reserve fund that money is now gone. What happened to it, where did it go ? FACT that money was drained to help keep taxes down. Pillaging of funds is a common practice with your group. How much money was spent on the environmental impact study (EIS) to prepare the demolition bond for referendum? FACT Roughly 800k. Where do you come up with these numbers ? Your crew is a total joke you just make things up!!!

Trojan: Re-read what you just wrote. I count nine sets of words set off by periods, question marks etc. These are what we usually call "sentences."

But in your post, only the fifth, sixth and eighth "group of words," for lack of a better term, are actual, grammatically correct sentences. The rest violate basic tenets of grammar, usage and punctuation with which children are familiar.

This makes it very difficult to follow your arguments. It certainly makes your arguments less persuasive.

Trojan4Life: I looked these up and your numbers are actually CORRECT. John that would mean you are incorrect.

GCRes1? I'm am glad to see you are back.   Instead of admitting John Ertle is factually incorrect you decide to attack my post on grammar. I give my apologies to all.  I am not accustomed to smart phones. Gc Res1 you just implied the main obstacle regarding St Paul's are the people on the committee to save it and not Brian and Nick, the people who were for demolition and refusal of donations for repairs on it?  You might want to review your statements big guy. I think you are smoking the grass at St Paul's again. 

The EIS study is necessary, but coupled with the 1.9 million in reserve funds ( specifically for St Paul's) I am unsure as to why the tax payers had to bear the cost of 800k. What happened to the 1.9 million dollars in reserves for St Paul's? Where did that money go? Do the math.

So GCRes1 you are thrilled they pillaged funds that were designated for St Paul's but still put the tax burden for the EIS study on the tax payers?  That is really warped, not mention a slippery slope.  Who determines what is right and a wrong or worthy enough to allow specific reserve funds to be tapped into?   Who is to say they wouldn't start skimming off other reserved funds ( infrastructure ect) to give the appearance of a smaller percentage in tax increases?  Actually who is to say they havent already?  Raymond mentioned a while back that they ghost their savings.  Thank you GCRes1 for not only solidifying your candidates are hypocrites earlier on this page but also their supporters condone misappropriation of funding.  I am glad to see you are ok with cooking the books in an effort to appear fiscally responsible.  That is not the choice in candidates I want to see in GC.  Vote Harrington and Segerdahl 

Trojan4life, did only Nick and Brian vote for the budget that allowed the 1.9 million St Paul's money to be used in previos budgets? No! The Village Trustees (including the three Trustees who always vote for St Paul's) approved the budget that allowed this to happen. So maybe you should blame them for not having the guts to reject it and have a 7-10% tax increase in one year. But I guess you just drink the Kool-Aid - and I can see through that!

I support Nick Episcopia and Brain Daughney, they are not hiding behind some agenda formed by the CSSP, they are people who care about the entire Village of Garden City. But either way you feel please make sure you vote, because the voice of GCres1 and Trojan4life are irrelevant, it is the voice of the residents of Garden City is most important to decide these issues.

Trojan,
Just to clarify, I said they bond all their infrastructure spending to give the appearance of a lower year over year tax increase. If the bonds were factored in, the real tax increase would be higher than the 7-10% PK mentioned. Also, the BOT has been financing the Village projects and day to day with cash on hand and reserves. There is another $7-$10 mil bond coming in The spring. They have been holding off on this bond from last March.

After reading this and also after not getting replies from Harrington on the experience question, it is clear that this election is about ST Paul's. SO if we want to protect our taxes and if we want to be sure to keep open and reasonable dialogue on St Paul's rather than be forced to accept the CSSP plan (which clearly seems financially inaccurate), I will help support DAUGHNEY & EPISCOPIA. I will be spreading the word and reminding people to VOTE TODAY from 4:30 to 9:00 at STRATFORD School (for the Estates), and at STEWART School (for the East). Thanks to those who provided comments to help my decision.

TODAY from 4:30PM to 9:00PM
VOTE DAUGHNEY (in ESTATES) at Stratford School
& VOTE EPISCOPIA (in EAST) at Stewart School
Don't let challengers representing ONLY CSSP undermine
what residents truly want: options and accurate financial information.

Luis that is an absurd statement! Nick and Daughney have provided zero options which is why we're in this mess with this town falling apart. I'm voting for HARRINGTON (in estates) and JON SEGERDAHL (in east) tonight. Thanks!