Chronicle Editorial: Croton residents are being shut out of one of the most important decisions the village has ever made.

In response to a Request For Proposals last year, two projects were submitted to village officials, and one was accepted. Officials refuse to divulge either one until after the deal is done.

Artist’s conception of planned development on Croton Point Avenue

As most readers will know, village officials are in the process of selling Parking Lot A to WBP Development LLC (formerly known as Wilder Balter Partners Inc.) for $2.3 million. WBP has put forward plans to build at least 95 condominium units on Lot A as well as the adjacent property, which the developer is currently in contract to purchase as well.

The village’s position is that no public hearings are required for this sale, as long as the Board of Trustees declares the property unneeded for municipal purposes—which it has done. While any development on these properties would require approval by Croton’s Planning Board and other village bodies, the sale itself and the basic plan for the site have already been approved by the Board. It is, as they say, a “done deal.”

Village officials have told us that two proposals were submitted in response to the Request for Proposals issued last July. Would it not be important, before the sale is finalized, for villagers to know something about the other proposal and what plans it envisioned for the Lot A site?

We think so. A 95 unit condominium right across from the only entrance to the Croton-Harmon train station is likely to have profound effects on traffic and other quality of life factors that will profoundly affect the life of the village. And those who buy the condos will be profoundly affected by the late-night nose from the rail yard, which is already an issue for many residents, even those who don’t live close to the station at all. (We will be reporting on that subject very soon.)

So last month, the Chronicle submitted a New York Freedom of Information Law request, asking for the proposals from both WBP Development LLC and the losing bidder to develop the site. The result was disappointing, although not surprising given the current Board’s frequent resistance to transparency in official matters.

Last week, the request for these documents was denied, for the following reasons:

“Documents are being denied pursuant to Section 87(2)(c) of the Public Officers Law, as information disclosure would impair present or imminent contract awards or collective bargaining negotiations.”

Now, the village may or may not have the law on its side here. A lot depends on how one interprets the term “present or imminent contract awards.” While the village may be entering into a “contract” with WBP for the sale of Lot A, this is not the same as a contract with a vendor to provide services to the village. The process is already well under way, and it seems unlikely that knowing the text of the exact proposal WBP put forth to win the sale would jeopardize that process, especially since WBP and its contracted architects have already told us a lot about their plans (see artist’s conception above and video of a recent Board meeting for details.)

On the other hand, the village could argue that if the deal should fall through, it might want to begin negotiations with the developer that put forward the losing proposal, and that if we villagers knew about the details of that proposal it might “jeopardize” that deal, including the purchase price.

Yet the FOIL does not require the village to invoke any particular exemption; it only gives village officials the right to do so, or to try to do so. We are currently discussing these questions with the Chronicle’s legal advisors. There is an appeals process in the FOIL, and the Chronicle does intend to appeal the decision. (The Appeals Officer will be Village Manager Bryan Healy.)

The village could, if it wanted to, balance the need for confidentiality against the public’s right to know, and divulge these documents if it chose to. So far, it has chosen not to. And that leaves us, the residents of Croton who will be affected by these decisions for generations to come, completely in the dark.

Maybe the “losing” proposal actually would have been the winner in the hearts and minds of Crotonites. For example, maybe it envisioned fewer apartments and more green space, as village trustees promised would be the case when they argued for the sale of the Katz property.

But if village officials have their way, we will only find that out when it is too late.

To share this post, or to share The Croton Chronicle, please click on these buttons:

Comments policy: Please be polite and respectful, no personal attacks.