Port Chester, NY

August 22, 2004

In 1999, the Village of Port Chester signed an agreement, the Land Acquisition and Disposition Agreement (LADA) with G&S Investors to develop the area at South Main St. East to the Byram River. The agreement also provided for a small area of vacant land and three buildings on North Main Street (our property) that was not contiguous to the South Main Street development. Unbeknown to us we had 30 days to file a suit in the State Courts challenging the public use of the "redevelopment project" based on whether or not the Village’s findings were correct as to the designation of blight. What we did do was to send a letter to the Village, three months before the challenge period to the designating authority, the Elected Village Officials, but never received an acknowledgement. We do know they received it.

The LADA agreement clearly sets forward a number of requirements that G&S is to meet and/or maintain to develop the properties with in the Marina Urban Renewal district. It specifically prohibits the preferred developer, G&S from selling its development rights.

After meetings with the Mayor, and then The Board of Trustee’s along with CVS the Village elected Officials directed us to proceed with the standard Village permitting process by applying to the Planning Commission for Site Plan Approvals while simultaneously pleading and encouraging us to try and make a deal with G&S.

Once we reluctantly agreed solely at The Mayor’s urging to meet with principals of G&S, which the Mayor refused to attend, it was clear as to what the cost to us would be to proceed with our project unimpeded. Gregg Wasser, principal of G&S, accompanied by his attorney Mark Weingarten, at a meeting held in G&S’s office demanded that G&S would be granted a one half ownership in the project or a payoff of $800,000.00 for giving up the preferred developer status, which is a direct violation of the LADA. We view this as extortion and declined to participate in any formal relationship with G&S Investors or its principal Gregg Wasser, where it has been reported in the local newspapers that Mr. Wasser is or has been a target of interest or investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

At this point, through a series of Freedom Of Information requests, we uncovered that there were as series of defaults by G&S of the LADA and IN FACT THAT G&S WAS CURRENTLY IN DEFAULT of provisions of minimum escrow account balance requirements, payments for taxes and payments for reimbursements for village consultants in the amount of more than $965,000.00 dollars.

Further more in direct violation of the escrow agreement, the attorney/client relationship and the premises of professional attorney ethics, G&S forwarded a $30,000.00 payment to and it was accepted by the Village’s Special Council for Condemnation directly rather than through the required method set forth by the LADA. We can’t understand how the Federal District Court, the BAR Association of New York State and the Westchester County District Attorneys Office can overlook this obvious breech of contract and violation of ethics which casts a tainted light across all the transactions and motives of the participants involved with this project.

We moved forward well within our constitutional rights as the lawful property owners of record, secured a lease with CVS, received preliminary and FINAL site plan approval only to have the property condemned (taken) on April 21, 2004 by the Village at the eleventh hour.

G&S now has our land and buildings, collects the rent that "WE" used to receive when "WE" owned the buildings and yet to date WE haven’t received one cent. We received offers of less than what we paid eleven years ago on one property and about half the fair market for the others. The villages elected officials public position is they cannot do anything except what G&S instructs them to do per the agreement.

It seems to be the preferred tactic, by design, of G&S Investors that by not paying promptly for taken property works very well by putting property owners of lesser means, who may have mortgages or limited means to secure adequate representation into a state of duress which forces these claimants to accept offers well below what the US and NY State constitutions call "fair compensation" for their lost property, fixtures and moving expenses, that must be paid when property is taken.

The lawyers that advise, represent and defend, The Mayor and The Board of Trustee’s are paid from a fund provided for by G&S. The attorneys know where their money comes from and if the project is not successful for the G&S there will be no future cash flow for them. Where is their loyalty directed? How can the residents of the village have faith in the actions of their elected officials in the light of these obvious conflicts of the attorney-client relationship?

During the slow and drawn out periods of seemingly no progress on this project has created a sever hardship on the local merchants that are still in the downtown area of the village due to the severe lack of municipal parking lots which were simply given to the project for parking of trades people and staging of construction material. This places a completely unreasonable hardship on the existing commercial properties that struggle while relief never seems to be on the horizon.

This is an abuse of eminent domain. The Poletown decision (Michigan) of 1981 moved the benchmark of "public use" to "public benefit" as the threshold for eminent domain use in this country. Starting in 1999 and through today, The Village of Port Chester has taken this movement and has shoved it to the absolute point of being grotesque.

However just last month, The Michigan Supreme Court has reversed itself on Poletown after 23 years and has erased the idea of "public benefit" from being the benchmark for invoking the powers of eminent domain. If it is not for the "public use" it can’t be condemned and taken.

What Port Chester continues to do with complete disregard for the rights of property owners is simply taking property from one private developer and give it to another private developer which happens to be the villages preferred developer that controls the municipal process without any oversight by the village government or its elected officials.

We have a signed lease with CVS pharmacy and G&S is trying to sign Walgreen’s.

We ask the following, "Where is the public use?", how does the public benefit when the current owner had a signed lease and the preferred developer does not.

Dick Bologna & Bart A. Didden