Rejection of Train Plaza RFQ
At the June 10, 2007 Common Council Meeting, Louis Cappelli, in recognition of the stated opposition of the Council majority, withdrew his request for an exclusive right to redevelop city-owned land at the White Plains train station.
We, the undersigned Council members, opposed the exclusivity agreement for a number of reasons. By agreeing to limit potential suitors for the site for a lengthy time, market forces would be eliminated resulting in a reduced return for the City, both financially and in terms of the nature and quality of the development. By opening the process to other developers and obtaining citizen input for our hometown vision, we can encourage ideas more in keeping with our current infrastructure and the nearby residential neighborhoods and the Bronx River parkland.
We were stunned when at the conclusion of the Aug. 23 Council Work Session we were presented with a “Request for Qualifications” (RFQ) for redevelopment of the train station area. This document is essentially the rejected exclusivity agreement in new clothing. Boykin, Power, Roach, and Malmud (the only four Council members present at the meeting with the mayor) were neither consulted nor asked for input. In fact, the item was not even listed on the agenda. A brief inquiry that night resulted in our being informed that the RFQ would be distributed immediately.
The mayor’s blueprint for the process of redeveloping the area at the train station is flawed in a number of respects. Under the mayor’s proposal, the city would commit to a developer without consideration of any actual plan. Under the terms of the mayor’s proposal, any city official would be prohibited from even discussing alternative proposals with interested parties. This restrictive approach, while clearly favorable to the selected developer, removes much of the city’s leverage in controlling what is developed at the site and works against achieving an optimum result for our residents. The RFQ does not even require a proposed land sale price. By entering into this process, we would be waiving our right to compare competing proposals to ensure that the project selected is the best possible. Let us focus instead on the needs of our city rather than a developer’s demands.
It is not in anyone’s interest to embark on a lengthy process which will cause individuals and the city to expend money and time if there is no hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached. We therefore publicly and unequivocally state our opposition to this process. We serve notice that we do not support the RFQ recently released by the mayor’s office through the commissioner of planning and will avail ourselves of all measures at our disposal to bring this ill-considered proposal to a quick end.
The land we are discussing, some of the most valuable real estate in the metropolitan area, is currently owned by the people of the city of White Plains. The decision on how or whether the land should be further developed must be considered from the perspective of their benefit alone. There is no urgency on the part of the city, and allowing others to create a false sense of urgency does not serve our interests. A careful and reasoned approach, with input from our residents is what is required. The RFQ process unilaterally put in place by the mayor does not serve that purpose.

Respectfully submitted,
Council President Rita Malmud and Councilmen
Benjamin Boykin, Dennis Power and Thomas Roach

Councilman Hockley Objects to Moussaoui Article
It amazes me that during our time of war whether the conflict be justified or not and whilst our brave men and women are serving this nation defending it, The White Plains Times, a great local newspaper, printed on its front page Aug. 24, 2007 such a naive and insensitive article entitled “Moussaoui’s Mother Promotes Nonviolence.”
Sept. 11, 2001 should and will always fill the media with the memories of survivors, heroes, witnesses, and the sorrow of family members that lost loved ones. This living documentation will serve future generations as history of a tragic and traumatic time in America. People will always try to empathize with the victims’ families and friends to rationalize and ask, “Why?”
In my opinion, our citizens must be careful from whom we receive this answer. My belief is that this fine newspaper has been used as a tool by Ms. el-Wafi, the mother of Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the most sinister, blood-thirsty criminals and perpetrators of hate in our lifetime. It appears to me that she and those sympathetic to her would like to sanitize and diffuse the pain caused by her son and others on September 11th on a more distant global level. Dealing only in generalities dismisses the significance of the incident.  For example, according to The White Plains Times, Ms. el-Wafi said, “we are the victims of politics outside the U.S.; victims of governments elsewhere that need more power.” I believe this is an attempt to minimize and distance us from reality by painting everyone as victims. People are not responsible, just unnamed governments of similar philosophies.
Ms. el-Wafi also says, “Mothers must go together arm and arm to protect the children.” It is quite apparent that Moussaoui’s mother is trying to rid herself of the shame and guilt over her son’s horrendous misdeeds and actions.  Her family knew nothing of her son’s misguided ideas? What happened to her family’s responsibility to prevent their child from causing this endless trauma to others?
We have a large enough task as Americans to bring comfort to families for generations to come, trying to rationalize the circumstances that led to the demise of the true victims of “Nine Eleven.” We must not allow ourselves to be swept up by the rhetoric of those too close to the perpetrator even as well- meaning as Ms. el-Wafi might sound. Pointed questions should be answered first. Could Ms. el-Wafi respond to the following:  What are her feelings about freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion or not within a sovereign state? What are her feelings on American/Israeli relations, women’s rights? In addition, since she is a public figure and states that peace in the world is a priority to her; would she denounce bin Laden and Wahabism, which is the Islamic fundamentalist fascist movement he follows?
If Ms. el-Wafi is truly an ally or at least a friend, then she should feel quite comfortable addressing these requests.    —Councilman Glen Hockley

Clarification
In the Aug. 24 article titled “Lever-Action Voting Machines’ Days Numbered,” Rosemary MacLaughlin was incorrectly identified as president of the League of Women Voters of Westchester; her term expired in June and the current president is Mary Beth Gose. MacLaughlin is still involved in the League’s ongoing study of voting machines. Also, the optical-scan machines the League favors do not dispense an ATM-style receipt, as the article stated. The ATM-style receipts, which the League feels would make a recount difficult because of their small size and the tendency for the ink to fade over time, are a feature of some electronic voting machines that the League does not favor.