First, I'd like to thank the Village of Larchmont for having some of the DEIS and related materials online. I'd like to thank the speakers from previous parts of this hearing--they've educated me, and I hope, the council.
I'd like to speak about a few things I read in the Executive Summary of the DEIS: "blight," "eminent domain," and "neighborhood character."
On page twelve of the Executive Summary, it says that the "Applicant's goal is to acquire all properties and relocate existing households and businesses on a gradual, voluntary basis without the use of eminent domain.
With a projected opening date of 2002, it seems that IKEA has an interesting definition of "gradual and voluntary," because I KNOW those churches don't want to sell. I KNOW that there are City Park residents who will continue to stand up for their rights and for all they have worked for.
So, obviously, part of the job of the DEIS is to justify the eventual seizure of the property of people who are "in the way of progress." (AKA corporate welfare)
The law that apparently allows this is the NY State Urban Renewal Law. In the NY state laws on General Municipalities, Articles 15 and 15A, I found the source for a lot of the "special" words used in the DEIS: "blight," "blighting influence," and "substandard or insanitary."
It's really easy to call a neighborhood "substandard or insanitary" in a report that cost three times the average salary of a resident of the area being described. It's really easy to call a neighborhood blighted when you can profit from it being condemned.
But where is the proof? If 85% of the buildings are in good or fair condition, where's the blight? Aren't we just saying that City Park residents aren't as yuppy as the rest of Westchester? That IKEA projects a better image for New Rochelle? That seems to be what they are trying to convince us of.
In the section on "Neighborhood character," Ferrandino and Associates present as a foregone conclusion that a giant monolithic structure is preferable to mixed use. If I may quote from their summary:
(1-9) The mix of existing uses...would be replaced by a large, single structure with a unified appearance.
(1-1) combining disparate lots and establishing a unified and functional plan in place of the mixed, non-conforming, conflicting and underutilized uses
(1-11) elimination of existing conglomeration of fenced yards, open storage of vehicles and construction materials.
I disagree. I don't believe there is anything intrinsically bad about an integrated community with an existing spiritual, economic and social foundation. So not everyone in City Park has a two-car garage. Does that mean that we can take away their houses and pave over their land?
Unfortunately, the New York State Urban Renewal Law does seem to allow these kinds of value judgements. If you go back to where this law is derived from--the Federal Urban Redevelopment Program, implemented under the Housing Act of 1949--it didn't use to be that way. THAT law required that the condemned area be blighted, not blighting, and it required that the area be developed or redeveloped as a predominantly residential area. In contrast, this Urban Renewal Law seems to allow many homes to be replaced by none, many jobs to be replaced by fewer, and a diverse economic base to be replaced by a single company, with no plans for what to do if that company pulls out. This is not renewal: it's destruction. And with the new facts brought up about the proposed Manhattan store and the possibilities for tax avoidance by IKEA, it's not even obvious that the city's treasury will be "renewed."
The Urban Renewal Law does make it clear that the decision is under local control. Title 81 defines the New Rochelle Urban Renewal Agency which has the authority to do this: "Its membership shall consist of five members including the mayor and the four members of the council of the city of New Rochelle." [Note: the city council of New Rochelle has *five* members.]
Well, this same Urban Renewal Law required that there be "a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals displaced from the urban renewal area into decent, safe and sanitary dwellings...at rents or prices within the financial means of such families or individuals, and reasonably accessible to their places of employment."
Does the DEIS propose a feasible method to relocate City Park residents?
No. There has already been public testimony that there is no feasible plan to relocate these folks. By definition, they are living in affordable housing: housing they can currently afford. It's hard enough for lower-income people to get by in Westchester. Now you want to use the strong arm of the law to make SURE they don't have a chance? Again, you are talking about destroying a neighborhood, not renewing it. The "potential" relocation payments the DEIS mentions don't make up for losing your house.
If every single resident of City Park--and the churches and businesses--didn't mind relocating, I would not be here tonight. It would be an issue just up to the citizens of New Rochelle and others directly impacted by the traffic and pollution.
I'm here because this action threatens the liberty of those living in City Park, and by setting a precedent, those in New York State. I'm here to call for RESTRAINT in using eminent domain and REFORM of the NY State Urban Renewal laws. Condemnation for retail purposes is a gross abuse of the power of government, and we need to go to Albany to take away this terrible power. This kind of discretion--to destroy an existing neighborhood and give the land to a corporation--is contrary to the American Dream, and I beg New Rochelle not to use it.