Reasons to vote NO on the proposed sale of 19 acres of town land
By:Jerry Ravnitzky
January 30, 2001


1. The Town Board never advertised the 19 acres for sale so that other developers could offer bids. They made a private deal with Paul Camarda to sell the land for less than the appraised value in 1995. Property values have increased significantly in the past six years!

2. The Town Board refused to reveal the appraisal value from 1995, even when requested numerous times. They claimed that revealing the amount would harm negotiations. In fact, their secrecy aided them in their efforts to sell the land for less than what it is worth.

3. It is a violation of the public trust for the Town Board to sell the land without obtaining a current appraisal BEFORE putting the land up for sale.

4. The contract was written by the developer and is flawed in many respects. One major flaw is that the developer is given three years to decide if he wants to conclude the deal. Did you get three years to back out of your real estate purchase?

5. The developer claims that he will get a major hotel and conference center to build on that site, but the contract makes no mention of that. Mr. Camarda can use the land for a variety of purposes, including residential development, and still be in accord with the terms of the contract. The Marriott Hotels had already rejected this land for development.

6. The Board claims that the hotel complex will generate 1.6 million dollars in revenue per year. What they don’t tell you is that, even if a hotel were built, construction would be very much delayed. Various approvals (DEC, DEP, Zoning, Planning, etc. etc.) can take years if Mr. Camarda decides to buy the land in three years. Then, actual building will take more than a year. Do you believe that a major hotel complex would agree to build in Carmel unless they were given a tax abatement, probably ten years tax-free. That makes the wait for tax money at least 15 years.

7. They say that Carmel Schools would be the major recipient of tax revenue. Mahopac residents would not benefit. Also, students from the Hamlet of Carmel attending Carmel Schools comprise about 20% of the total enrollment. About 80% of the students at Carmel Schools live outside of the Town of Carmel. Therefore, most of the tax benefit would go to residents of outlying towns. Yet, 100% of the cost of public services (fire, police, etc.) provided to the businesses there would be borne by Town of Carmel residents.

8. In his ads, Mr. Camarda lists himself as a local person. This “local person” actually lives in Ridgefield, CT, not Carmel.

9. I understand that Mr. Camarda is still negotiating with the YMCA to sell them some land. There is no contract currently existing to ensure that the Y will wait three years. Can Mr. Camarda sell land to the Y that he has contracted with the Town to sell to them at their option? Wouldn't we be able to get a Y in Carmel faster if we negotiated directly with them?

10. The Town would have no other suitable land for their many needs in the next few years. They will then have to purchase other land, most likely for a much higher price per acre.

11. After insisting for months that an up-to-date appraisal was unnecessary, they have now decided to obtain an appraisal. They had an appraiser start work at least five days before voting to hire an appraiser. They were obviously afraid that public opinion was going against them, that most residents no longer trusted them, and that the resolution would most likely be defeated. An appraisal long after the contract was written hardly qualifies as a reasonable response.

12. The Town Board insisted on wording the referendum in a highly biased manner, emphasizing the points that they believe would get people to vote Yes, and omitting all of the serious drawbacks.

13. Have you seen the hundreds of signs in town, the multiple cable TV ads, and the many large newspaper ads, all telling you to vote yes? Such an advertising campaign takes loads of money. Are they trying to buy your vote?

14. If the residents of Carmel want a hotel on that site, that’s fine, but it should be done in an honest and open manner. Residents should have an opportunity to be heard before this decision is made. The sale should be widely advertised so that other developers can bid on the land. In that way, we can get the best deal for the residents of Carmel and serve the needs of the community.

I believe that when the residents of the Town of Carmel know all the facts, the referendum will be soundly defeated.

Jerry Ravnitzky
628-6681