There is a very active community group in Larchmont/Mamaroneck called “The Summit”. Once a month on a Tuesday morning they meet at the Nautilus Diner in Mamaroneck ($8 gets you breakfast and coffee!) where they have a variety of speakers come to speak to community members and leaders about topics affecting the area residents.
On Tuesday May 20th, 2014 their guest speaker was none other than Westchester County District 7’s Legislator Catherine Parker. Click on the link below to watch, I’ve outlined helpful minute markers to speed you through to the parts where she talks about Playland and has a back and forth with me.
When I push her to state clearly whether or not she supports a full EIS (Environmental Impact Study) she tries to dance around it and I proceed to try to pin her down at which point she tells me “you’re not listening” (ohhhh, yesss I waaaasssss) and then gives some more lame convoluted excuse as to why she wouldn’t support an EIS. At a later meeting (Coffee with George) on Sat. 5/31 I *did* manage to pin her down and got her to specifically state that *IF* Sustainable Playland proceeds with the review process and their plans for this Field Zone construction, she will, in that scenario, support the pursuit of a full EIS. She’s like an eel, that one.
Find out what's happening in Ryewith free, real-time updates from Patch.
View the Larchmont/Mamaroneck Summit Meeting of 5/20/14 here
Minute marker 11:30: Introductions are done and Parker starts her spiel off by speaking about Playland and her decision the previous week to withdraw her support of SPI. Playland talk finishes up around minute marker 19:48, with questions deferred until the end of her presentation.
Find out what's happening in Ryewith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Minute marker 69:00: They edited out my asking of the question and skip right to her response. What I asked was a very specific: Is there any scenario at all in which you would revert back to supporting SPI, is there anything they can do that would make you go back to supporting the plan?” She somewhat reiterates the question and then proceeds to say unequivocally that…”It’s the end of the road for me, we’re done.” She very clearly states inarguably that she will NOT for any reason revert back to supporting SPI in their quest to run Playland Amusement Park. It's on videotape and, for once, there's nothing ambiguous about her answer.
Catherine Parker is on notice: If during the hoo-doo-voo-doo that is undoubtedly going on behind the scenes these last two weeks in which two review meetings in a row have been canceled and the reverberating sound of crickets is coming from both the 8th AND 9th floors on the County Office Building, we can all surmise that SPI is clawing at the ledge with their last shred of fingernails, desperately trying to make sure that they get their talons into that billions-dollar waterfront property at any cost, if the outcome SHOULD turn out that something gets thrown on the table to keep them in the game such as, ohhh, I dunno, hypothetically let’s say a removal of the Field Zone project (for now, to get their foot in the door) – she still cannot support it.
Let's also keep in mind the wording of her support withdrawal. She cited the LITIGATION ISSUES facing SPI in the process, not a problem with the group and the plan or their woeful financial status; the "Environmentalist" in her certainly never expressed any concern about the plethora of environmental issues that were going to arise. She withdrew her support by essentially blaming others (that would be YOU Joe Sack and Ken Jenkins) for putting up legal road blocks by demanding that a process be followed. She blamed the people fighting SPI, not SPI's poor performance and lack of any viable plan (WHERE were we going to park all those cars?) Don't forget that. Cagey? Perhaps. Could lead one to some concern that if the litigation threats went away, then maybe just maybe she'd decide again that it's a good plan.
This SPI group has done nothing but consistently show everyone from the County, to the City of Rye leadership to the local dog walker and residents that they are not up to the monumental task of turning Playland around, either professionally or financially. We have two better options on the table. SPI can’t have Playland. They’ve bungled things too badly at this point. The job needs to go to someone who can handle it.
We know Sustainable Playland always has *something* up their sleeves. Whatever it may be, it’s too little too late.
The Save Playland group is going to hold Catherine Parker to her current position. No matter what.
