Letter: A Glen Cove–Sea Cliff ‘Win-Win’ Ending Is Needed

3
284

Because the Glen Cove Waterfront Project is not an in-depth Sea Cliff village wide issue, there probably is an overwhelming silent majority among Sea Cliff home owners and business people who believe Mayor Kennedy himself has overstepped his bounds by being ingenuous and unprofessional in interfering with Glen Cove’s home-rule style economy, quality of life, and future.

If Mayor Kennedy’s and other’s differences are not put aside concerning the Glen Cove Waterfront Project we cannot expect or hope for a joint Glen Cove–Sea Cliff “win-win” ending. Progress is painful but regression is more so. Your readers have the good sense to determine which one will it be?

Taking a look at the “Shore Road, Glen Cove, NY Google Earth Satellite Image” one can see for themselves that there are not that many Sea Cliff shorefront and/or hillside property owners as they might have imagined whose northerly lines-of-sight-views of Garvies Point itself would actually be altered by the development of this project. A point to explore further is whether these then are the few property owners who are the main catalysts that propels Mayor Bruce Kennedy and others to oppose Glen Cove’s efforts to finalize this once-in-a-lifetime effort that can improve the quality of life and economies for not only Glen Cove but all the surrounding communities including Sea Cliff?

Mainstream economists point out that when adjoining municipalities task-organize and communicate, coordinate and cooperate with one another that their respective economies improve and flourish. It is a fact of life that when these communities instead interfere with one another, their individual economies show little or no gain and/or continuing growth. Instead they stagnate over a short time. In this regard, perhaps Mayor Kennedy himself needs to know from concerned citizens and shopkeepers in Sea Cliff that it might be more advantageous for everyone that if he chooses not to lead or follow in a positive manner on this project, then it might be best for him to professionally recuse himself from further involvement.

When decisions are made at any governmental level that cite junk science language and/or anecdotal evidence as fact it is not considered to be good law or in the best public interest. Other than rhetoric, has Mayor Kennedy, or anyone else ever cited any hard reliable facts, data, or evidence of any kind to prove in a clear and convincing manner that the infrastructure, health, physical well-being, finances, or lines of sight will actually be harmful in an way among any of the few affected Sea Cliff shorefront and/or hillside property owners or anyone else?

This waterfront project is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Mayor Spinello has produced factual objective and meaningful quantitative data and timetables as to how Glen Cove and its contiguous communities can jointly benefit economically if they communicate, coordinate and cooperate with one another. Accordingly, I hope the good citizens and entrepreneurs of both Glen Cove and Sea Cliff will thus recognize that the project itself is of vital economical interest and gain for all of us.

—Bob Pemberton

3 COMMENTS

  1. Clearly the author of this piece of propaganda has not been following the facts that have been presented in Facebook pages like “Save the Glen Cove Waterfron” or attended Glen Cove City Council meetings! The sight line of a few Sea Cliff residents is an important but NOT the only objection to the project! I am a Glen Head resident concerned about the additional traffic that will flow through Sea Cliff, Glen Head and other communities from 2,000 additional cars clogging already-overburdened suburban roads when the population of Glen Cove is increased by 10%. Sea Cliff is well within it’s rights because of a Memorandum of Understanding between Sea Cliff and Glen Cove signed back in 2000 by then GC Mayor Tom Suozzi, which Mayor Spinello has chosen to ignore. Changing the project to virtually all-residential and increasing the density should have prompted a revised environmental impact study, but Mayor Spinello and his GC cronies have also chosen to dismiss that issue. There are even more issues (toxic site, budget, etc.)! Mr. Pemberton needs to get his own facts straight!

  2. Revitalization and renewal of an area is one thing, but in this case we are faced with urbanization. Most of the people who live in this area do so because their families wished to escape from the development and urban character of the New York City boroughs to our West. The towns surrounding Hempstead Harbor furnish a refuge. The North Shore is a place where people want to build families and secure peaceful lives, not In contrast build gargantuan structures that will forever mar our shore. This area has afforded us egress to employment in Manhattan during the day and peaceful homes to return to. Multiple high rise structures are not the answer. It is my fervent hope that the natural character of the shoreline be maintained, and a new plan befitting the area be adopted. In closing –
    . ” After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, and so on – have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear – what remains? Nature remains.” Walt Whitman

  3. The Glen Cove mayor has his mouthpieces. And even his mouthpieces have mouthpieces. Your son (the husband of Glen Cove’s city clerk) has someone writing his copy. So does Pasquale Cervasio. Who writes yours, Mr. Pemberton? Zefy, Levy or someone else? Concerned citizens are wondering who really is the pen behind this?

Leave a Reply to Joseph Lopes Cancel reply