I believe the RIOC-sponsored meeting of February 16 was presented under false pretenses. You invited "the public to attend a presentation given by Jones Lang LaSalle on the responses to the Request For Initial Proposals for Roosevelt Island." What you announced at the meeting was quite different. What you said to the audience of Islanders and representatives of our local officials was that the thrust of the meeting was to solicit the public’s preferences for the five sites involved.

In fact, Paul Mas of Jones, Lang LaSalle gave a ten-minute presentation that simply reiterated information discussed at a recent RIOC Board of Directors meeting and reported in The Main Street WIRE. It’s safe to say that the audience was composed of savvy Islanders already familiar with the meager information that Mr. Mas chose to share. What became clear from the comments from residents and Main Street merchants is that we took time from our busy lives to learn the nature of the proposals you had received, but none of this information was forthcoming because the 14 responders (who paid a total of $80,000 in fees to present a total of 21 projects) had been guaranteed confidentiality. What a farce!

In that case, what were we doing there? How could we offer ideas when the range of what the Board was looking for is a secret? How could we respond to the projects presented when apparently they are on a "need-to-know" basis, as well? Yes, we understand these are just initial proposals but we have decades of experience with bad ideas turning into concrete right before our eyes. Octagon Apartments comes to mind, consuming land that is, incredibly, still listed in our General Development Plan as open space.

Nevertheless, we did our best. How’s this for starters: Joyce Mincheff, a professional real-estate agent, suggested that we could support merchants who have stuck it out here for years and decades of lower-than-expected populations by giving them rents determined by a percentage of their profits rather than square footage, a common commercial stratagem. We told you that we want a park at Southpoint Park and nothing but a park. Even the three acres that Mr. Mas insisted upon calling the "City Hospital site" and that we know as the northernmost portion of Southpoint Park should be developed as a park, not as a new residential development or a commercial crescent (already repudiated in the Trust for Public Land surveys) or a hog-rendering plant. The $12 million for Phase I is already in place, so additional funds aren’t needed to build Southpoint Park. Additionally, we said we do not want a big-box store (Mr. Mas called it "destination retail" but we knew what he was talking about) where the tennis bubble and steam plant are now situated. Anyone with the slightest sensitivity for Roosevelt Island life knows that our transportation systems simply will not support such a commercial venture and Lillian Shuey Picchione, an Islander and a professional transportation planner, confirmed that.

There’s something to be learned here. Several years ago, we endured a presentation by City and State Offices of Emergency Planning at which we learned a great deal about their tables of operation and fire hazards in the Adirondacks, but nothing about emergency planning for Roosevelt Island. As a result of the very vocal objections made in that meeting regarding the wasting of Islanders’ time, the current series of Contingency/Emergency Planning meetings evolved and serious planning for our unique situation is ongoing. Learning how to communicate with the residents of this community has been a work in progress for RIOC. We want to know which of the projects offered, most of them residential, might be considered by the RIOC Board and which will be repudiated out-of-hand. Until they are ready to answer that critical question, it might be best not to offer information and then – clam up. I urge you to meet with a responsible group of Island residents (might I suggest the Island Services or Planning Committee of RIRA? As only two of the six resident members of the RIOC Board bothered to show up at the February 16 meeting, they apparently have more important things to do) to distinguish good ideas from the bad ones and then, to present substantive information to the community rather than the unsatisfying showing you and Mr. Mas made on the 16th.

Roosevelt Islanders want a say in their future and we’ve never been shy about demanding it. And it’s within your power, Herb, to accommodate us.

Matthew Katz

RIOC deserves praise for the maintenance work that has been done over the last ten months. It is noteworthy that within the last month, the patchwork sidewalk replacement has finally been corrected on the west side of Main Street; perhaps the same kind of replacement will, without another year’s wait, finally take place around the ConEd grating on the east side of Main Street under the Eastwood Arcade.

Based on the awakening of RIOC maintenance work, is there also the possibility of a more momentous change?

Your January 26 column in The WIRE acknowledges the fact that RIOC has not shared much information with Island Residents ("...the financial structure underpinning our Island is often misunderstood or misrepresented by some Island activists.")

Recognizing this to be the way it is is a great first step. Now, what about correcting this problem? Why not use your WIRE column or the occasional RIOC newsletter to set out the facts? Why not go back to the commendable path you started out on – remember the building meetings you convened in the first few weeks of your stay here?

There will be unhappy residents that show up at such meetings – that is the purpose of the meetings, isn’t it? You will find out how people feel; people will hear from you some straight facts; all parties will begin to feel that maybe someone is listening to them.

Herb, you have had a life-long career as a public servant. Why not put some of the lessons into practice that you learned in your earlier career work?

I am a longtime resident of the Island, and attorney practicing law in Manhattan.

I attended the meeting held on Thursday, February 16, but learned very little about what has been proposed to date from the RFIP process being conducted by Jones Lasalle and Paul Maas.

I offer some comments and suggestions for the RFIP process and future Island Development:

I understand that one proposal is for "destination retail" under the Tram. I assume that means a "big box" store like Ikea.

That is not practical. Deliveries would not be possible except in the dead of night, disturbing the residents of both Southtown and Northtown.

Customers would not come by Tram and subway without their cars to take goods purchased. No parking space is available, and the traffic of cars coming and going to a big-box store would create horrendous adverse environmental impacts.

I understand from the brief comments of Mr. Maas at the meeting that most proposals from the RFIP process, other than one by a non-profit organization for a seven-story building at the north parking lot area of the Island, is to build more residential housing, at the same north end and where the former City Hospital was sited south of the bridge and Tram.

Right now, without any more housing, there is a transportation crisis as Islanders cannot easily get to work during the morning rush hour, say from 8:15 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. weekdays. The subway is packed with Queens residents. There does not seem to be a second track for an additional local "shuttle" that could run from the Island into Manhattan, nor, perhaps, enough "headway" between F trains to run such a shuttle. The Tram is also becoming more congested at that time.

Hence, any additional housing on the Island must face up to the reality that the existing subway and Tram cannot handle the current population and, moreover, there are about six more buildings scheduled for Southtown. Existing subway and Tram congestion will sharply increase and make it difficult to attract new residents.

For now and the immediate future, additional residential housing for the Island beyond the completion of Southtown is not practical.

A ferry or additional trams could be considered to alleviate some of the bottlenecks, but those are both expensive and not very efficient. It may not be understood generally, but the Tram is expensive and inefficient as a means of "mass" transportation. Ferries also leave riders at the edge of midtown, with a further bus ride required. While it may be more practical for Wall Street, a ferry is very expensive to run and may not be practical for the relatively small Island population.

This Island was not designed to be like the East or West Sides of Manhattan, a sort of mainly white and high-income enclave, but rather was intended to be a diverse racial and economic community with provision for seniors and the disabled. The GDP reflects that design and goal.

Ignoring the GDP’s requirements is in conflict with both RIOC’s lease obligation to the City and invites a legal challenge. I urge the RIOC Board to examine all its proposed actions with a view to what the GDP provides.

There are also untested legal issues concerning how the GDP can be amended. Although not challenged legally in the recent Octagon lawsuit, an amendment to the GDP and Lease may require the consent of the City Council rather than just the consent of the Governor and Mayor.

Finally, the RIOC Board should adhere to the vision of this Island as diverse in all senses, with care taken to preserve the low-, moderate-, and middle-income population.

RIOC is not able to manage the retail stores successfully, with some space never rented and other stores failing. I would favor new ideas for the management of the stores, perhaps putting an anchor tenant in charge of leasing out the other stores, or a retail-management firm taking on that responsibility. Trying something new is probably wiser than RIOC trying, after all these years, to do a better job. Managing the retail stores is not something it does well.

Much of the discussion about the future of the Island and its development is based on the assumption that the Island must be self-sufficent and both its capital and operational needs met without government subsidy. However, development of the Island should not be predicated on such an assumption or goal, however laudatory.

Rather, RIOC’s Board must consider, first, that this is an Island which, much like Governor’s Island, cannot be easily self-sufficient due to its special character which imposes special costs such as a Tram and more costly maintenance and operation.

Thus, some City and State "subsidy" is required for both capital and operational needs, with the goal of self-sufficiency kept in mind as a "goal," but not a "requirement."

User fees and charges can only increase so much in a diverse community that includes low- and moderate-income families and disabled and seniors.

I hope these comments are useful. I would ask that they be included in the official record. I would also encourage the Board to provide more information about proposed development so that residents can comment on it.