By Matthew McGevna
, one of the options the Town of Hempstead is weighing to close the Courtesy Hotel, which locals have been complaining about for years.
This was the second meeting focusing on the Courtesy, which has been the scener of much police activity. Residents have called it a ³no-tell motel,² and a ³den of iniquity,² and have lobbied for its closure for more than a decade. The first meeting took place last Oct. 11 and featured a discussion of eminent domain, the process by which the Town of Hempstead could take control of the property. Organizers of that meeting now believe they are closer than ever to seeing the Courtesy shut down.
At the Feb. 28 meeting, 5th Precinct detectives provided the audience with details of police work at the Courtesy. In 2006 there were 200 calls to the precinct about the hotel, 96 incident reports and 42 arrests.
Some members of the audience demanded to know why the Town of Hempstead has not closed down the Courtesy under the ³predicate felony arrests² provision of the town¹s nuisance laws. According to town code, an establishment can be deemed a nuisance and padlocked if two felony arrests are made there within a year.
However, according to Rosalie Norton, president of the West Hempstead Civic Association, there is a process that must first be followed before a padlock can be used. ³You can¹t slap a padlock on a door; you have to go through the courts and get a court order,² said Norton, adding that the Courtesy has battled the town in court and has become adept at prolonging the process. According to Norton, the hotel owner has changed lawyers three times, and each time legal proceedings have been postponed in order for the new lawyer to familiarize himself with the details of the case.
According to West Hempstead resident and activist Seth Bykovsky, the padlock provision does not require a court order, and even if it did, the town could easily win a civil suit after the hotel had already been closed. ³If I was the superintendent of the town, I would show up at the hotel with padlock in hand and then take my chances in court,² Bykovsky said.
After the 5th Precinct gave its presentation, Charles Theofan, the town¹s commissioner of planning and economic development, detailed the eminent domain process. But many West Hempstead residents have said they don¹t want the town to take over the property by eminent domain. They would rather sell the property to a private developer who was committed to turning the lot into a valuable commodity.
Residents say they already have a party interested in developing the property, the Texas-based firm Trammell Crow. Company representatives attended the October meeting.
³We want this sale to go through as quickly as possible,² said Norton, saying she believed she spoke for many in the community. Norton said she has gotten a flood of e-mails since the October meeting from residents who want to see the property handed over to private developers. ³Nobody wants eminent domain,² she said. ³This is the way to go. There¹s no reason they can¹t start proceedings to sell the property now.²
Others at the meeting, however, said it seems as if the town favors eminent domain, which would give control of the property to the town, and it would then have to be put to public use. But according to a spokeswoman for the town, both the eminent domain process and the Trammell Crow are under consideration. ³We¹re on a dual tracking system,² said Press Secretary Susie Trenkle. ³No private sale has been interfered with. We¹re working to ensure that if one thing doesn¹t go through, there¹s another process in place to ensure that something positive happens with the site. We¹ve been going at this from every angle that we can.²
The case against eminent domain seems to revolve around the time it would take for it to go into effect. Opponents say that while the town seeks eminent domain, the Courtesy continues to battle the padlock provision in court and, in effect, the hotel stays open for business indefinitely.
While Norton could hardly contain her enthusiasm for the Trammell Crow offer, saying, ³This is the first time we¹ve had a developer come in and show us a plan,² Bykovsky was not as optimistic.
³It¹s high density, there¹s question of rental verses ownership and the massiveness of the project, as well as the fact that you might open it up to other developers,² Bykovsky said of the Trammell Crow option. ³On the other hand, it¹s the devil we know verses the devil we don¹t know on the eminent domain side.²
Norton says she has confidence that Trammell Crow will serve the West Hempstead community in a positive way. ³There¹s no guarantee with any proposal, but if this was an unknown entity, I¹d be more concerned,² she said. ³But we¹re dealing with a reputable company, they¹d be using private money, [and] they would have no reason to turn it into something that would lose money.²
Some organizers of the meeting were disturbed by the presence of a Town of Hempstead employee who, they claim, attended the October meeting and disrupted the proceedings. According to Bykovsky, William Sammon, the town¹s director of human resources, paced back and forth during the meeting.
Norton did not name Sammon specifically, but said that when she requested that West Hempstead residents have priority over non-residents when it came to making public statements, ³This person marched down the middle of the aisle and stood there with his arms folded, daring me to not let him speak.² Bykovsky and Norton said that Sammon is a resident of Hempstead Village, and seems to be opposed to the Trammell Crow acquisition, giving rise to the suspicion that he was there on behalf of other town officials.
Sammon denied having any motivation for attending the meeting on the town¹s behalf, claiming he was there because he lives ³just over the line² from West Hempstead and that the Courtesy affects his community as well. He added that he wanted to get across to residents that a Trammell Crow acquisition would not be completed any faster than the eminent domain process, and that there are other proposals for the property that should be given equal consideration.
Sammon confirmed that he opposes the Trammell Crow purchase because, he said, ³The size and density of the project would be unprecedented in our area.² He also noted that private acquisition of the property would require a change in zoning.
And Sammon defended his actions at October meeting. ³I certainly didn¹t mean to be disruptive, but I felt singled out, because I was at the previous meeting and was given ample time to speak, and suddenly they changed the rules and said only people from West Hempstead could speak,² he said.
According to Norton, the town is unable to complete any transaction with Trammell Crow until it performs an Environmental Impact Review, and she said it should do so immediately so that if a sale were to take place, the review would be one less thing holding up the proceedings. ³To wait a month or whatever they think they need to wait is a disservice to the community,² Norton said.
³I¹m in favor of whichever will close the Courtesy faster,² said Walter Ejnes, a member of the West Hempstead Civic Association¹s executive board. ³From what I know, it seems there¹s a deal with Trammell Crow that would make it go sooner than the eminent domain option.²
Ejnes agreed that the battle needs to be fought on two fronts: acquiring the property for development, and closing the Courtesy. He noted that a lot of people seemed to hang their hopes on the idea that the Trammell Crow sale would proceed faster, but since that would still take months, residents need to focus their energy on persuading the town to exercise its nuisance laws. ³People are getting frustrated,² Ejnes said. ³People are asking me, ŒWhy isn¹t the Courtesy closed?¹²
Town of Hempstead officials say they are weighing all their options, including proposals from other developers competing with Trammell Crow. As for the Courtesy¹s current status, the town says it is still seeking a court order to padlock the business.
Comments about this story? Mal-wheditor@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 205.
