How important is EPCAL?

I have absolutely no doubt that EPCAL is THE central issue of this year's campaign. And that is as it should be. It is Riverhead's one hope for long-term economic stability.

Redevelopment of the EPCAL has been bungled from Day One. Most of the bungling is because it's been turned into a political football Election Year after Election Year.

Planning for the future of the 2,900-acre facility was marred from the get-go by the guiding principle of the people doing the planning: Make it impossible for EPCAL to become an airport. The re-use plan even states as much up front.

Now, that's OK by me, because I don't want to live next to an airport any more than the next person.

But the management by objective (i.e. no airport) has had negative ramifications. First, the crazy-quilt zoning for the site, adopted during the Villella Administration. It was self-contradictory, confusing and stupid. It has done more to prevent redevelopment of the site than an army of tiger salamanders.

Two years ago, when I questioned then-candidate Cardinale about some of the zoning code's most puzzling contradictions, he told me, and I quote: "That was a code that was adopted basically without being read." Remember, he was on the Town Board and voted for this code— without reading it carefully, he says? That amazed me — no, it shocked and appalled me, and I told him so. Perhaps the most important piece of legislation to come before you as a councilman, and you're trying to tell me you didn't read it? And Cardinale, of all people, whom I've seen be quite masterful at picking things apart when he wants to be. (I did report this interview, including that quote, in the newspaper at the time, by the way.)

The crazy-quilt zoning still exists, and it's the same zoning that allows for proposals like the FRP theme park, water ski park, and condos "accessory" to golf courses.

STOP! Stop it right now!

It's bad enough that this town gave away all the industrial buildings and infrastructure at the old Grumman plan (except the runways) on a total of 463 acres to an out-of-town developer for $17 million! Bad enough that the developer turned around a flipped the buildings to others without even bothering to get a legal subdivision, and made himself who-knows-how-much in the course of a day! Bad enough that the buyers there are sucking wind because they're occupying illegally created lots, so they can't get use permits or bank financing! Bad enough that the developer's subdivision STILL isn't finalized more than five years later! (And the developer has lawsuits peinding against the town, including property tax reduction actions!) Bad enough that the town allowed a sand mine to be dug so deep (in the name of a recreational water ski facility) that they hit our aquifer IN THE PINE BARRENS! Bad enough that the place even looks like the joke it is: an abandoned manufacturing facility now being run by the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Now you don't have to go and tear up runways and replace them with fairways to prevent EPCAL from becoming MacArthur Airport East End! All you have to do is use common sense, good planning and appropriate zoning. But there's not much of that going around in this town, especially during an election year.

There shouldn't be a single home or golf green built on that site.

I called the supervisor the other day to talk about the Wilpon plan. I'd received an email from someone saying that Cardinale had agreed to postpone the contract until after the election and I wanted to verify this. Not true. He is intent on moving ahead with the deal.

There's something not right here. A piece of the puzzle is missing. Why is Riverhead willing to sell more than 755 acres (Phil told me the survey just completed for the town showed it's more like 780 acres, not 755) for $66 million. That's $84,615 per acre if we're selling 780 acres. Why would WIlpon's purported hotel chain client (Starwood) want to build a huge hotel there? (Especially when you take into account the four other large hotels already in the pipeline in Riverehad.) The town hasn't even required Wilpon to file a business plan. How is he (or Starwood) planning to fill those rooms? If the hotel/convention center portion of this deal is the "economic development" carrot being dangled before us to get us to swallow the idea of HOUSING at EPCAL, shouldn't the town be investigating this and making sure its real? (I've tried to get Starwood to back up Wilpon's claims about their plan to build this hotel/convention center, but they've ignored my requests for an interview.) Wilpon doesn't even pretend to be anything more than "an assembler of land" for developers. His entity is named "Kenneth I. Wilpon as Agent." Who is he agent FOR? Shouldn't the town know this before selling such a huge chunk of real estate to him?

If there really is going to be a hotel built here, might it have anything to do with a future casino there? The Wilpon draft contract has a clause that says "no casino" but it also has a giant loophole : "unless allowed by federal, state or local law." Does Wilpon or somebody know something we don't?

Cardinale told me that Wilpon doesn't want anybody to steal his idea, and that's why he is jealously guarding his plans. Come ON. Even the imposters who tried the land-grab in the name of a theme park submitted a business plan. It was a complete joke and, once exposed for the imposters they were — complete with phony financing letter — they packed up and left town.

Now, with Wilpon, we've done away with the need for any business plan at all. Why?

To justify this sellout, Cardinale told me that, with the addition of 600 new acres in the industrial zone (thanks to the zone change now pending and nearing completion) there will be no need for additional industrial zoning for another 25 years. My answer: So what? That's not a very long time. And they're not making any more land, you know. It's an investment in the future. There's no need to hold a fire sale and sell our future out from under the next generation.

The sale to Wilpon accomplishes two critical things for a politician in an election year like this. First, it puts millions in the town's coffers (not $66M, because you have to deduct costs, fees, broker's commissions, etc. but millions nonetheless.) You tell me: what useful things did the town accomplish with the net proceeds of the Burman deal?
Second, it drives the final nail into the coffin of an airport at EPCAL, which mollifies the western Riverhead constituency that Cardinale counts as his core voter base.

I think this issue is so critical that I would have a tough time voting for Cardinale on Nov. 8 because of it.

But then — there's Ed.

Though I agree with him about the Wilpon deal, I remember his passionate advocacy for an airport there (a point of view that seems to have evolved and scaled down over the years) and for a racetrack, too. His connections to people who operate illegal sand mines in Riverhead bother me, too. Heck, there are plenty of things about Ed that bother me. (And I'm sure it's mutual. No, I know it is.)

Can this be, should this be, a one-issue campaign? Is the future of EPCAL important enough to the future of Riverhead that we should make our choice in the polling booth based on where a candidate stands on housing at EPCAL, as Ed advocates?

You be the editor

"D Day" has a good idea. If everyone who posts here picks an identity — a "handle" if you will — that will facilitate discussion. Then people could reply to each other by "name." I am changing the settings to require that you register to post a comment. All that's needed is a handle and an email address. It should be pretty painless to register. After you've chosen a user name & password, blogger asks you to name your blog. If you don't want to start a blog of your own, you can quit the registration process right then. You'll still be registered and have a user name & password for posting. If you have any problems let me know by sending me an email to denise@timesreview.com and I'll do my best to help you.

It's interesting reading some of these comments to see how certain stories morph over time as they are told and re-told. Maybe this is intentional on the part of some people with an obvious agenda. Or maybe it's just like the old childhood game of telephone. Remember that?

Here's an example. Somebody or some people have been postng about Cardinale allegedly having the parking lot of a business associate paved by the town. We've never heard THAT one at The News-Review.

But here's what we did hear, and to some extent, see.

A while back, someone sent me a photo (by email) that showed town highway department workers re-paving the driveway apron at the entrance to the parking lot of Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler & Yakaboski. This is a law firm that's been representing the town in all different types of legal matters for as long as I can remember — but for a two-year break when a short-lived Democratic majority on the Town Board (one that consisted of John Lombardi, Rob Pike & me) fired Smith Finkelstein and hired Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelly.

Anyway, the property being repaired by the highway guys in the photo sent to me by an angry resident (also someone I know to have an agenda of his own that goes beyond furthering "good government") was actually PUBLIC property, NOT private property and it was a driveway apron, not a parking lot. I think this is the item that morphed into what people have written about here, i.e that Cardinale used town workers to pave the parking lot of one of his business associates. Also it pays to note that the highway department is run by an independently elected official, the highway superintendent. It is not run by the town supervisor, who has no legal authority over the highway department workers or over the highway superintendent. The highway superintendent, in case you don't know, is former councilman Mark Kwasna. A Republican, incidentally.

One thing, though. At around the same time that this work was done, the town board adopted a policy that the maintenance of all sidewalks in front of businesses is the responsibility of the property owner, not the town. It's not clear to me whether the "maintenance" they're talking about here includes major repairs with cement and asphalt, though.

Question for all of you: This item was presented to The News-Review like it was some sort of a huge scandal. We decided that it had little if any news value. It was public property, after all. Should we have reported this, i.e. that the Riverhead highway department repaired the driveway apron at the entrance to a parking lot belonging to the town's longtime law firm, in spite of the town board's adopted policy requiring sidewalks in front of businesses to be maintained by the property owner? What do you think? If you were the editor receiving that email, what would YOU have done? Was this a news story? Did we drop the ball?

NB: The hIghway department also did a fair amount of repair work to the runways at EPCAL two years ago, just before the NY Air Show. That was also done in spite of a previous voter referendum prohibiting the expenditure of public funds on those runways. So maybe there's some sort of trend here... But that's another story.