3/9/07 Residents: No county project fits south Main

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

After abundant discussion about the proposed Public Health project on south Main Street, Legislator Carol Tytler asked a group of 16 downtown residents at a public forum Thursday night what sort of county project they would support in that location.
The answer was resounding: nothing.
“The No. 1 issue is location — this is just the wrong place,” said Gigi Peterson, who was voicing an oft-raised concern that the site is not large enough to house the Departments of Health and Mental Health, as was originally proposed.
“The people here just aren’t interested in a smaller facility, because we don’t think it will stay small,” Peterson said.
Thursday’s meeting was an effort by Tytler (D-3rd Ward) and the special committee she chairs — which was charged with examining in detail the county’s aborted land deal and its options as it moves forward — to get input from residents living in the areas near the proposed site.
While much of the comment reflected anger and frustration, both at the proposed project and perceived problems with the way it was handled, Tytler said she was pleased with the outcome.
“I think this was a great discussion and an important one, I’m just disappointed it didn’t happen last October,” Tytler said.
That residents weren’t given ample opportunity to weigh in on the project before the county first voted on it in December was a key issue for those in attendance.
Also important was the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, which residents praised as a safe, residential, family-oriented area.
Increased traffic, safety issues and the installation of a parking lot were all cited, as were new concerns, most frequently the fact that sex offenders receive services at the Department of Mental Health, and the prospect of air pollution and a lower quality of life.
“This is not just an ‘in my back yard situation’” Peterson said. “This is two blocks from a school.”
Those in attendance also harped on the removal of properties from the county’s tax rolls, and, when asked by Tytler to discuss an ideal south Main Street, most said they preferred commercial properties to governmental, and many suggested alternative sites for the health facility.
Tytler stressed that she understood that residents did not want any sort of county project on the site, but asked for suggestions of what might be acceptable, and she did receive responses ranging from a county motor vehicles office to a public housing facility and/or a public park.
“It boils down to a facility that’s of a scale the existing site would accommodate, and a function that would not require dramatic growth,” said Vince Minnella of 64 Church St.
Many in attendance expressed resentment that the county was looking at ways to salvage the project, or at least the property acquisitions themselves, due to a threatened lawsuit from some of the property owners involved.
“Now, to keep from getting sued, you have to find an alternate use for the property,” said Mike Dexter of 10 Cedar St. “I don’t think people want that, we don’t want a substitution.”
Tytler acknowledged that pending legal issues were a consideration, and said that County Attorney Ric Van Donsel would be addressing the committee next week.
A resolution will likely be brought to the floor at the Legislature’s March 22 session to purchase the property, Tytler said, and the special committee’s focus was not so much to make a recommendation as to provide all available information on each of the county’s options.
The committee, which met again this morning, would likely meet a number of times next week and likely present information regarding all options at a working session with legislators prior to the March 22 meeting, Tytler said.

At Thursday’s public forum, Legislator Carol Tytler (D-3rd Ward) said the special committee she chairs hoped to present the full Legislature with information regarding a slue of options in terms of how to deal with property that some say the county is legally bound to purchase.
Those options, according to Tytler, may include:

• Purchasing the property and going through with the original plan for a 30,000-square-foot facility to house both the Health and Mental Health departments.
• Purchasing the property and placing on it some sort of scaled- down facility, such as the county’s motor vehicle office or a facility that only houses a portion of the county’s health services. This potentiality could also include reselling the residences on Randall and Williams streets included in the deal, Tytler said.
• Purchasing the property and putting it back on the market.
• Not purchasing the property, and responding to a possible lawsuit.
• Not purchasing the property and negotiating a way for the county to get out of its initial purchase agreements and avoid a lawsuit.