.

Seaford School District Provides Q & A on Referendum Proposal

Vote on proposed plan to sell former Seaford Avenue School property for 55 and older condominium project set for Dec. 12.

The following was submitted by the Seaford School District

What follows are some of the commonly asked questions and answers concerning the proposal for the sale of the Seaford Avenue School and property, which will be decided by Seaford’s voters in a referendum vote on Dec. 12.

History of the Seaford Avenue School

The Seaford Avenue School, which was built in late 1935, last educated Seaford students in 1981. In September 1981 all of the district’s elementary students were reassigned to the Harbor and Manor Elementary Schools. Once it was no longer used for the education of Seaford’s children, the school was leased to Five Towns College for 10 years beginning in September 1982 and then to Nassau BOCES from 1992 through 2010. The building has been vacant for the last two years.

1992 through 2010.  The building has been vacant for the last two years.

Q. Why are we selling the Seaford Avenue School building and property?

A. Without any current or foreseeable income in the future from the property the district can no longer afford to absorb the cost of maintenance and expect residents to make up for the loss of yearly income. We expect to save about $100,000 in yearly maintenance costs and expect another $500,000 in yearly property tax revenue from the residents who purchase the units.

Q. Why not wait until the real estate market improves to sell the property?

A. For every year the district waits it will continue to pay maintenance costs on the building and land, and lose out on property tax revenues that will come from the proposed residences. For example, if we wait two years and receive $1 million more for the property, we will have lost $1 million in tax revenue and also would have spent $200,000 on maintenance costs.

Q. Why doesn’t the district consider having the Town of Hempstead or Nassau County take over the property?

A. We engaged the town in this discussion over two years ago and they had no interest. The financial situation in the county makes that possibility unrealistic.

Q. If no playing fields remain at the Seaford Avenue School where will those youth organizations go to play?

A. Nassau County and the Town of Hempstead provide excellent all-weather fields at Washington Avenue Park, Cedar Creek Park and Seaman’s Neck Park. The Harbor School athletic fields are also available and currently underutilized.

Q. Why doesn’t the district consider demolishing the building and maintaining the property itself?

A. Due to environmental issues the cost of the demolition of the building is in excess of $2 million. Maintaining a vacant property brings no revenue into the district. In addition, the school district is not in the business of maintaining parks or park-like property. The cost of maintaining non-revenue producing property wastes financial resources that could be best used to educate our children.

Q. Why can’t we put more than one option up for a vote?

A. Under the law, only one referendum for the disposition (sale) of a property can be placed on the ballot at one time.  The district does not have the ability to place “choices” for residents to vote on.  This process is very different than a general election, for example when electing the president of the United States. Additionally, the development of condominiums on this property was the only type of offer received by the district.

Q. Who is purchasing the building and land?

A. After engaging Greiner-Maltz, a local commercial real estate firm to market the building and land, BK at Seaford (the Engel Burman group) presented a proposal which the Board accepted.  There was one other proposal that Greiner-Maltz received, which the Board reviewed and countered, but the Board never heard back from that bidder.

Q. Is the contract of sale available for public review?

A. Yes, the contract and all amendments to the contract are available on the district website.

Q. What happens if the referendum passes but the town does not permit the zoning, or the zoning is reduced to fewer units?

A. If the zoning is not approved the buyer can elect to cancel the contract. If zoning is approved for less than 113 units the price is adjusted downward; but in no event can the purchase price be lower than $4,950,000. If zoning is approved for less than 100 units the buyer can also elect to cancel the contract.

Q. What is the selling price for the building and the land?

A. The gross sale price is $5,193,500.  The gross amount will be reduced by Greiner-Maltz's commissions, attorney's fees and other adjustments based on the final number of units to be built. In no case will the gross selling price be less than the $4,950,000 minimum specified in the contract of sale.

Q. What is the cost of commissions, legal fees and other expenses?

A. The commission is 4.5% of the purchase price.  Attorney’s fees are approximately $15,000; the cost of the vote and miscellaneous postings and communications are approximately $12,000.

Q. How soon will the school district realize any flow of funds from the sale of the building?

A. Realistically, it could be two years for the process to be finalized.  Voting on the referendum of sale is the first step in the process followed by review of the plan by the proper government agencies, ending with zoning approval and then the closing of the sale.

 

Q. What does BK at Seaford, LLC envision for the property?

A. The plan is to build between 100 and 113 condominium units. The units will be designated as housing for residents 55 years of age or older and not allow children under the age of 18.  Initially, current Seaford residents and their parents will be offered purchase opportunities prior to non-Seaford residents. First floor units will feature 1000 sq. ft. of living space and a 1000 sq. ft. basement which can be finished. Second floor units will have a private elevator, cathedral ceilings, 1000 sq. ft. of living space and an approximately 300 sq. ft. loft. All units have two bedrooms and two full bathrooms. The community will have a central clubhouse, including a fitness center and outdoor pool. The selling prices of the units will be in the $350,000-$400,000 range.

Q. When did the proposal become age 55 and older with no children?

A. Originally, BK at Seaford did not envision an age and child restriction. After hearing feedback at the Oct. 4 informational meeting, they ascertained that making it age 55 or older and not allowing children would satisfy residents’ concerns about the make-up of the development. This also led to the final amendment of the contract and the postponement of the initially scheduled October vote.

Q. What assurances does the District have that 55 years or older condominiums with no children under 18 will be built?

A. The last amendment to the contract includes that a restrictive covenant will be placed in the deed that requires the property to be developed as a 55 years and older community with no children under the age of 18. In the event the builder does not honor the contractual commitment and the covenant, the District can go into court and legally prevent the builder from constructing some other type of property.  The covenant can also be enforced by the Town of Hempstead and the town would not approve another type of development.

Q. If BK at Seaford, LLC sells the property what stops a new builder from doing something different?

A. The contract could be assigned, but the new property owners would be bound by the same terms of the contract as BK at Seaford, LLC.  The covenants run with the land and cannot just be ignored by a new developer.

Q. Is the district responsible for any costs in taking the building down?

A. No, the contract makes BK at Seaford, LLC responsible for all costs involved in the demolition of the existing building.

Q. What happens if the proposition passes?

A. BK at Seaford, LLC will have the responsibility for gaining all of the necessary zoning approvals and variances for the project from the Town of Hempstead and any other possible governmental approvals needed. The builder will not seek any tax relief from the town for the residences and will not offer any subsidized units.

Q. Can the property be developed as a rental community?

A. No, The contract for sale specifically requires the property to be purchased as owner-occupied condominiums.

Q. Will the condominiums generate parking problems?

A. All units will have adequate parking spots which are located inside the development. This should reduce any parking issues in the surrounding area.

Q. What about additional traffic?

A. While there may be a small increase in overall traffic, it is expected that this will be spread out over the course of a day. Currently there are bottlenecks in the area during the times that the fields are used when people park on both sides of Waverly Avenue. With parking inside of the development this will alleviate the issue around parking.  BK at Seaford performed a traffic study which is available on the website.

Q. Is an increase in student enrollment expected from these units?

A. The condominiums will be for residents 55 years of age and older. Children under the age of 18 are not permitted to reside there. This should eliminate the addition of children into the schools.

Q. What will the district do with the proceeds from the sale of the property?

A. Under New York State law the net revenue from the sale after commissions, attorney fees and other adjustments will be placed in a reserve fund.

Q. What happens to the money after it is placed in the reserve fund?

A. The Board of Education is required to use the funds over a period of up to 10 years.

Q. If the property is sold, why aren't the net proceeds given directly back to the taxpayers?

A. Under New York State law, the funds must be placed in a reserve fund which can be used to apply to the tax levy.  In essence, the money is being returned to the taxpayers, but not in one lump sum.  Returning it in one lump sum is not sound financial management and is illegal.

Q. How will the reserve money be used?

A. The Board of Education will have the responsibility each year to decide what amount of the reserve will be used as the budget is prepared. It is planned that this additional revenue will enable the district to retain, restore or expand programs for students and make needed facility repairs/ improvements while complying with the New York State property tax cap.

Q. Will the community have to vote on the use of the proceeds that are placed in reserve?

A. If any of the funds are placed in a capital reserve fund, the voters would be asked to vote on the use of that money for the specific capital improvement project. This would be a separate ballot proposition.

Q. Will the district receive any additional tax revenue from the sale of the building?

A. Yes, under the current tax cap rules each school district is provided with a growth factor from New York State to include in the calculation of their tax cap figure. This growth factor includes new developments and other changes in the district and is added to the prior year's base tax cap figure.

Q. When the district receives additional tax revenue from the proposed condominiums, how will the additional revenue be used?

A. The additional tax revenue generated by the new residences becomes part of the existing tax base of the district when developing the budget each year. Since the tax cap formula allows new development to be included in the tax cap calculation, the district will realize an increase in tax revenue.  This will allow the district to retain, restore and advance our educational program.

Q. Who is responsible for paying taxes on unsold units?

A. BK at Seaford will be responsible for those taxes until the units are sold.

Q. What if the proposal is not approved?

A. If the Board made a decision to market the property again they would need to enter into a contract with an agent and begin the marketing process from the beginning. Keep in mind that the district would continue to pay for annual maintenance on the building and property of approximately $100,000 and would not receive any revenue from the proceeds from the sale or any tax revenue.

Q. Where can I get more information about the sale of the property?

A. Please refer to the district website at: www.seaford.k12.ny.us where all current information will be posted. For more information about BK at Seaford, LLC, please visit: http://www.engelburman.com.

Q. Will there be an informational meeting prior to the vote?


A. While the district will not be holding another formal informational meeting, there is a board meeting scheduled for Thursday, De. 6, where any questions not previously asked could be raised. The Board of Education with district officials and the purchaser, BK at Seaford, held an informational meeting on Oct. 4 in the high school auditorium.  Over 300 residents attended this session, where questions were asked and answered.  As a result of feedback at that meeting, the purchaser requested that the vote on Oct. 16 be postponed so that the contract could be amended to incorporate certain provisions to make the contract more specific and provide clarity on certain provisions.  A copy of our presentation and BK at Seaford's presentation, along with the contract and all amendments, is on the district's website for your review.

John DelGiudice December 11, 2012 at 01:14 PM
This post was too long and had to be split so my apologies. It is surprising to me that nobody has broken down the cost for the average household. Every discussion is about the total amount. These are the approximate totals: 1. $100,000 in annual operating cost 2. $500,000 in 'potential tax revenue' 3. $5.193,500 Gross sale price The district is approximately 10% commercial property and 90% private homes of which there were about 5500.so the cost to maintain the propert for homeowners is .9*100,000 = $90,000 $90,000/5500 homes = less than $17 per year or $1.50 a month. Also, while it may cost the district $100,000 to maintain, it is less clear if any positions will be eliminated and thus how much can really be saved but at $1.50 who cares. $500,000 in 'potential tax revenue' doesn't mean more money for the school budget, it means everybody pays a little less. Since the potential tax revenue is 5 * the current annual operating cost calculated above, the average monthly tax savings comes to $7.50 per month.
John DelGiudice December 11, 2012 at 01:15 PM
$5.193,500 gross sale price is to be reduced by commissions and legal fees. Let's call it $5 million to be generous. This money should be used to offset capital expenditures over the next ten years or $500,000 year in cost avoidance another $7.50 per month. With this information people can make better choices. From my perspective, it costs $1.50 month to keep the fields for the kids to play and is well worth it. I'll get $15.00 a month for 10 years starting 2 years from now and $7.50 thereafter in exchange for more crowded streets, restaurants, trains, doctor's offices and grocery stores. I'd rather pay a little more and try to keep things the way they are! I'll vote no now. At some point the building should be razed and a dozen or so private homes should be built while keeping at least two of the fields. In my opinion of course but eveveryone should arrive at their own
save seaford December 11, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Well maybe $270 dollars a year is nothing to you, to many people in this community it is a lot. So take the building down and give me my money. Also I am sure the stores and restaurants would welcome more buisness.
Sal Triolo December 11, 2012 at 03:44 PM
Get out the vote, the time is near To move forward, it is clear Vote Yes to progress, if that's your game Giving in to paranoia is kind of lame Its the right decision for the town To the stores, it will be profound Bring more people, these over 55 Flush with pensions and lots o' cash To eat at our stores and add to our stash For those who don't see the path We wish you well despite your wrath But when the cloud has lifted on Wed Night The sale of this bldg will end our blight Vote YES Seaford, we need every vote!! Don't be duped by fear mongering gloat!
Lorraine DeVita December 11, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Lets take those numbers even further- ITs NOT $270 dollars per houselhold PER YEAR. It equates to according to Mr Delguidice's Math 15.00 PER MONTH (180.00) for 10 years then 7.50 per month($90.00) after that NOT $270 total per year. 300 Days(giving you 64 days to make your own coffee) of a Medium PLAIN ol cups of dunkin donuts coffee@ 3.49 per cup comes with 2 donuts =$1047 dollars ANNUALLY ONE appointment for hair coloring, cut and blow out not including tip $200.00 per month= $2400 ANNUALLY to hide those grey hairs! One really good KNOCK OFF LV,D&B, or Coach handbag = $200.00 One REAL LV or Coach Wallet= 180.00 (cost of admission right there) One pair of Leather Riding Boots ON SALE including tax $200.00 ++ ONE concert tix for a fairly decent non nosebleed seat $150.00 per person ONE non nosebleed Giant Tix , plus travel gas tolls, food etc.$200.00 ONe Jets Tix for 150.00( they are horrid) Yankee tix for two non- post season pricing- $150.00 ONE tank of gas for a 26ft. io boat = 235.00 as per my LAST fill up x minimum 4 times = $940.00 Numbers/Money are actually totaly irrevelant . It boils down to HOW you priortize your spending - 15.00 per YEAR equates to $0.042 cents PER DAY! FOUR CENTS per day !
Lorraine DeVita December 11, 2012 at 04:03 PM
thats less then whats in the bottom of every womans handbag or in anyones cup holder in the car! Thats what we will be realizing if we sell this property. FOUR CENTS PER DAY! WHOOOPIE! Perhaps instead of selling to a developer the SCHOOL DISTRICT should buy a dunkin donuts franchise we would make EXCEEDINGLY MORE money!
Chris Wendt December 11, 2012 at 04:20 PM
It is interesting how the facets of this deal can be selectively disregarded or selectively emphasized in order to justify a variety of opions. All opinions condense to either yes or no votes, however. Any economic analysis must not ignore the loss of $400K annual rent for the past two years and every year going forward. That revenue used to support spending, but while that lost revenue, which will have accummulated to more $1.2 million by the end of this school year, has stopped, the spending which it used to support has not stopped (with perhaps the exception of at least one season of middle school sports each year). In another 3 years, that revenue "hole" will have deepened by an additional $1.2 million for a total of $2.4 millon not there to support spending unless taxpayers continue to shoulder the load. Then, there is the 800-pound gorilla: the cost of demolishing or rehabiolitating the the school, a school with zero "need" for the foreseeable future. You must add at least $2 Million to the value of the sale price in the current offer, because the current offer includes demolition and remediation costs in addition to the gross sales proceeds. So the sale is actually worth $7.2 million gross to the school district. People were agog at the prospect of boat fuels and lubricants possibly contaminating the Harbor school grounds recently. Yet no one is mentioning the undergroung fuel tanks at SAS, although you are aware of the asbestos issue there.
Lorraine DeVita December 11, 2012 at 04:22 PM
Sal. four cents per day will chase our fiscal problems away? four cents per day let the people have their say four cents per day to this I say NAY!
Buster of Seaford December 11, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Sal you are killing me. Good grief. save seaford (and I have to say, that's one interesting handle, given your position on this) you mention that folks don't have the $270 to spend, might be true. But the 6-7K it costs you to live here, in order to finance the school district with all of it's inefficiencies, pales by comparison. Consider that the sale won't lower your taxes a penny, nada. The district gets a 500K kitty for ten years, for purposes not explained fully, then that's gone too. And Mr. DelGuidice is 100% correct. The very short term gain you think may come of this will be negated by the impact to our quality of life around here. 112 units..think about that. Something else can be found, some other proposal, that will work for both the school district and the community that isn't so terribly lopsided. The sky is falling folks that seem to feel there just isn't any alternative but to fold our tents and let this monster get planted here ASAP, I'm not buyin' it. Sal..end our blight? Jeez Louise. Vote no. And then I guarantee you alternative proposals will be presented. There's too much profit to be made, even if it's a plan more palatable to the community. A plan that doesn't change this place in such a profound way, like this plan no doubt will.
Buster of Seaford December 11, 2012 at 04:47 PM
And another suggestion, this to the district, that they be completely transparent next time. And that they not conclude that a 10% "survey" return adequately reflects the wishes of the taxpayers. Judging from recent events, they were clearly mistaken about that. Personally, I'd like to see someone from the community- one thing I have found, there are some very learned folks around here, with experience in business, the law, and with the district- to act as oversight if/when we have to go through this again. I'm sure others wouldn't see it that way, but I'd like to hear the arguments why not. For the moment though, vote no. And let's do something better than this.
Lorraine DeVita December 11, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Chris, FYI, the school district has properly maintained the one exisiting Fule tank left and has properly abandoned/removed( dont quite remember which) the other two. There is sufficient documentation to support even the most discriminating that was provided by the school and verfied with the town that the SD has fulfilled their obligation re the fuel tanks. in the proper manner. NO issues with the previous 2 tanks and no issue with the remaining tank. So lets not add a concern that doesnt exisit . Through out this whole process I have to admit one thing i have learned either by my own research or from others is that this SD DOES follow the majority of the rules when it comes to issues pertaining to the environmental maint of the facilties. Kudoes to Mr Ward and his meager staff for holding this district together with spit, glue string and prayers on a budget assigned to him that for all intent purposes is beyond ridiculously low. The man does wonders with what he has to work with both in funding and staffing. We have a rather large facility footprint and a rather SMALL budget and an even smaller staff to maint it.
Chris Wendt December 11, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Of course, no actual competing offer was ever submitted, and if a person states he or she is going to guarantee that alternative proposals will be presented if the current offer is rejected, then it should be presumed that the guarantor has the funds and other means to back up such a statement. After 200+ comments it would be helpful to take five and re-read the article above about which we are commenting. In relevant part it was clearly stated: "Q. Why can’t we put more than one option up for a vote? A. Under the law, only one referendum for the disposition (sale) of a property can be placed on the ballot at one time. The district does not have the ability to place “choices” for residents to vote on. This process is very different than a general election, for example when electing the president of the United States. Additionally, the development of condominiums on this property was the only type of offer received by the district." That Q&A is the official, factual, correct, hard reality of the situation. Tomorrow you be voting for or against the one and only offer ever received for this property, Take it, or leave it. There is no other offer. There are only two choices on the ballot before you, Seaford: yes, or no.
Sal Triolo December 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Much has been said by those who vote 'naught' per lack of reason for proverbs not taught everyone knows 'a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush' hours of Hannity and Maddow have made your mind mush Extreme are your view as evidenced in CAPS constant barrages of imminent COLLAPSE Everyone incompetent, corrupt, misinformed and obtuse Except our Monday morn QBs, on the Patch they let loose For those of us with glasses half full Vote Yes to the sale of this building awful The time to vote is coming so near Vote for progress, not paralysis of fear Remember the proverb about the bird in the hand Come Thursday morning, rejoice the sale of this land!
Lorraine DeVita December 11, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Sal, got to hand it to you, if nothing else you are talented, but hopefully you also have a day job or a really good pension , but all in all not bad not bad at all, IMHO WRONG.... but talented.
Lorraine DeVita December 11, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Can you imagine a world where we all got along where all the birds sang the very same song where all the trees looked exactly the same all the house too down to each window pane? I think at some time we ALL would agree that at times we DO need to "gasp" DISagree ! We each have dfferences in thoughts and concerns yet some sit around silent ,while the community burns there needs to be something that we each can do to keep this town OURS but thriving too Perhaps if you get in your car take drive go vote make difference go support your side We each have a voice that needs to be heard we are not cattle, nor sheep in the herd We are each individuals with minds of our own Go vote, make difference, both sides you've been shown! dont sit in your chair and complain in a ditty you need to go VOTE if not much the pity!
Ralebird December 12, 2012 at 12:08 AM
A hundred and twelve? The horror! The place will be crawling with geezers on walkers like zombies crawling out of the sewers. There will be no stopping them. The horror!
Ralebird December 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM
Actually, in the world of business a ten percent return on a survey or even an advertising campaign would be remarkable. Knocking on every door in town would likely not produce much more.
Constance Roland December 12, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Its impressive, at least to me, that the Patch has reported on this issue many times. Good job, and Fascinating. Nice to see the history. January, 2012 http://wantagh.patch.com/articles/condo-proposal-pitched-for-seaford-avenue-school-property June, 2011 http://wantagh.patch.com/articles/real-estate-firm-selected-to-help-market-seaford-avenue-school-property January, 2011 http://wantagh.patch.com/articles/survey-shows-majority-disagreement-to-most-options-for-seaford-avenue-school-property November, 2010 http://wantagh.patch.com/articles/seaford-avenue-school-property-survey-underway
Chris Wendt December 12, 2012 at 01:54 AM
Two years of dithering, with no rental revenue stream, a couple hundred grand in ongoing costs sunk into the place, diligent but seemingly endless sports fundraising trying to fill the semi-permanent hole in the school budget; more good money invested in the services of one of if not the top real estate market firms in the state to find and motivate a buyer and elicit an offer; this one real, good offer worth $7.2 million all-in is now on the ballot for your consideration, Seaford This is about as close to what I consider to be a no-brainer than anything I have ever seen put to a vote anywhere. Yet there is another agenda with its own perspective, and its adherents are highly motivated on a deeply personal level. Recognizable and understandable to a point. That is why, despite tomorrow's rosey weather forecast, the odds that the vote will pass or fail by at least one vote are presently 52% Fail to 48% Pass, in my opinion. But my opinion doesn't count; it is completely worthless in this matter. The only opinion that does count is yours, in the voting booth, tomorrow.
Buster of Seaford December 12, 2012 at 02:25 AM
Maybe it's zombies that are tagging the back of the school now. Nice picture last week in the Spotlight guys..maybe you succeeded in frightening a few people with it. That was no coincidence. How nice. And yes Ralebird you are right, it's going to result in more traffic, if that's what you mean by crowded. Thing is, I'm pretty sure most people don't catagorize themselves as geezers with walkers at 55. Or the other people that decide to move in too. Despite was EB was quoted saying, that there would be even less traffic than when BOCES worked with the kids there, (they really did!) I'm pretty confident they are mistaken. Maybe they just went with the any means to an end scenario. It was statements like that along with that slick powerpoint con at the High School that had me realize it all had to be looked at a little closer. Good thing. Traffic survey. Really? Sell me a bridge too. Vote no.
Patrick December 12, 2012 at 03:22 AM
Buster, please justify, elaborate on, or just plain explain what you mean by this statement "And then I guarantee you alternative proposals will be presented. There's too much profit to be made, even if it's a plan more palatable to the community" By the way, not taken out of context, just cut and pasted, your words. As has been asked numerous times, what do YOU suggest as an alternative? What do you feel is a viable secondary solution. And please tell everyone what your logical conclusion is, as to why there has been nothing of equal or better value offered on this property to date. If you are going to guarantee a better proposition, which you have, it would certainly behoove you to at least give one example of what the residents might expect going forward if this deal is quashed. @VL, I will be out to vote tomorrow, as many times as I can. But not with bells, not my gig, I'm more of a tassles kind of guy. Hope to see many of the people with whom we have sparred. People, the sky is certainly not falling, but it is a low fog with little or no chance of clearing in the forseeable future. Logic indicates the passing of this referendum, but as we have seen, read and heard, logic is something that one can be hardpressed find. I just hope that the many reasonable and logical people who understand the ramifications of a no vote on this referendum, come out and cast their positive vote for progress in this community.
VL December 12, 2012 at 03:36 AM
...I really do like this guy...LOL.
Lorraine DeVita December 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Constance, thank you for posting the links to previous articles regarding the SAS the history . I find it very interesting that the SD leadership had proffered several options that they considered viable. I also find it interesting that they were open to keeping or refurbishing the building, demo'ing the building, selling PART of the property. 650 residents responded to the infamous survery those 650 were conflicted and there was no clear cut or discernable community decision on how they wanted to proceed. "Some of the many options the district has for the property that are included in the survey are renovating the building to attract a new tenant that would lease the facility, selling the property to a developer, or razing the structure to create expanded athletics fields the district and community can utilize. Some options for developing the land if the property is sold could include creating condominiums or 55 and older housing units while also maintaining the current athletic fields on the site, according to district officials". Regrdless of where you stand on this issue it is imperative that everyone votes, each side has its pros and cons, the result should be a true reflection of what THIS COMMUNITY wants not just some. 650 voices responded to the survey, 400 voices attended the presentation yet we HAVE 5500 VOICES! . VOTE...
Patrick December 12, 2012 at 12:43 PM
The quote in the previous post was taken from an article from November 2010. As has been stated recently, keeping this property, refurbishing this property, or parceling out this property are not viable financial solutions, nor are they on the table. Thank you once again, Lorraine, for your not so veiled attempt to sway people to your point of view and to muddy the waters at the 11th hour with irrelevant information. The vote that is happening today is to sell the property, or not to sell the property to EB. If this referendum is voted down today, we are back to square one. As has been stated in this article, a search for another buyer would commence, and we will be spending more money to find, what at this point, is non-existant. Please everyone, get out and vote, but please do not allow yourselves to be swayed by moot information offered up by self serving people. Make your decision based on the facts of this case. We have a buyer, with a viable solution at the table right now. What we do not have is any alternative plan in the pipeline, or anyone in the eaves looking to jump up and satisfy everyones ideals. Vote, vote vote, vote your conscience, and vote the facts.
Follow the Money December 12, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Not sure how the vote will go today. Either way, there are no winners. I am not in favor and plan to vote NO. Hopefully the BOE will get it and work towards a new plan that will meet the needs of the community. I still think that there are good solutions out there if everyone puts their mind to it.
Lorraine DeVita December 12, 2012 at 01:53 PM
Patrick, you are 100% it WAS taken from2010. However it goes to show that even as EARLY as 2010 this board and Admin.were open to a multitude of other options. Each with there own pros and cons. However we ARE voting on an referendum that was not then nor now one that this community came to a consensus on as a voteable option. Neither the surveys, nor the meetings, provided this board with a clear consice direction this community wanted them to take. Which was my point. We dont voice our opinions then we have no one to blame but ourselves with the outcomes. That is why I urged everyone to go vote REGARDLESS of their stance. The COMMUNITY needs to make a decision NOT just a handful of people as this will effect the entire community forever. When you dont USE your voice then you LOSE your voice. Once again you are correct it is either YES or NO to THIS SALE to THIS developer to THESE CONDOS for OUR community. I hope everyone votes on what they feel will make Seaford a BETTER place to live, on whats BEST for our COMMUNITY . What YOU personaly beleive is best for our COMMUNITY is HOW YOU should vote. Its that simple people just need to use their VOICE and VOTE.
Danny T December 12, 2012 at 02:27 PM
While I donot like the way the place looks now, real eyesore, my main question is WHO is gonna pay 400K with 8K plus taxes, plus condo fees to live on Waverly Ave? I guess they can walk to 7-11. Cant even walk to movies or a supermarket. NOT an ideal place in my humble opinion. We shall see.
Patrick December 12, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Lorraine, your proclivity for backpedaling is absolutely astounding. If your intention was to get people out to vote, why not just say that? Why would you dig up a 2 year old quote, which for all intents and purposes indicates that there were/are actually other possibilities for this site, when in reality there are not? And why do it at the 11th hour on the day of the vote? Had you brought this information up earlier in this conversation, it would have been immediately dismissed. As everyone knows this property must be sold, there are not now or will there be any other options, as it has been made painfully clear, keeping this property is not financially responsible, or in the best interest of the community. Your transparent attempt to sway votes via the use of inaccurate and irrelevant information is laughable. As I have stated many times, people, vote, vote your conscience, and vote the facts. And to close, I am also glad that this will be consummated by the end of the day. Most out here are rational and logical and understand what is required of them, and I hope they will all turn out for progress in our community. As for the others, we all deal with people who speak just to be heard, offering nothing more than rhetoric, and when pressed, do nothing more than continue on their crusade offering nothing additional to back their hypotheses. The bane of our existance. Hopefully everyone can see through their self serving ideologies.
Lorraine DeVita December 12, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Patrick, A) Constance brought up the aticles not me she posted for all to see. B) you really need to stop reading between lines looking for things that dont exist. you re going to ruin your eyesight. How much plainer do i need to be. perhaps a reading comprehension issue? this is not about HOW to vote but rather GO VOTE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR STANCE GO VOTE> DONt let someone else make a decision for you. Patrick if more people were concerned previously and responded to this survey that you yourself agree & claim was poorly responded to,or ignored or thrown away. vs what some others are saying that it wasnt received BECASUE no one took the time to respond or received the survey it leaves us with referendum in front of us and regardless of what anyones stance is this is what we have to vote on and the people have to now decide yes or no. grasp the concept ?? not difficult.. YES or NO its really that simply but bottom line people have to USE THEIR VOICE otherwise choices get taken away and made for them .. quite simple GO VOTE whatever way you want just vote.
Patrick December 12, 2012 at 04:44 PM
WHAMMO......the dlflection. Constance posted the links to all the articles, but she did not choose one line from one article that bolsters her position solely, which is exactly what you did. Not reading between the lines, merely pointing out an intriguing aspect of your post. ZINGO......the attack. "perhaps a reading comprehension issue?" All I described was the interesting timing and one sided quote that you chose to use in your attempt to make sure people get out and vote. Also I merely pointed out that when you are confronted with these issues, as you have been in the past, you tend to backpedal. You chose to call me illiterate. BANGO........The retreat. We can all see this part. While others get tired of you and decide stop posting because it seems a waste of time, I on the other hand, do not and will not. I refuse to allow people like yourself to constantly hammer home their own points and opinions as if they are gospel. That is what you hope for, as it in some convoluted way, makes you feel like the victor. See you on another string, most likely on the opposite side, just because. VOTE PEOPLE VOTE

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »