Peace Bridge Neighborhood activist Peter Joe Certo is upset with The Buffalo News for playing fast and loose with its own policies. Here’s an email he sent around to dozens of media folks, including many writers at the daily paper. He offers real estate records and email strings as evidence. Read on…and on...

“A writer or household may be represented in the column only once in 60 days.”

This is to call your attention (again!) to a violation of your guidelines for publishing letters in Everybody’s Column.  This is not the first time you’ve violated/waived your own guideline for repeat publishing, nor is it the first time I’ve called your attention to it.  Below are links to two letters: one published today; the other less than “60 days” ago. They are written by members of the same “household”: neighborhood scribe and self-styled “legal” expert Barbara Battista and her home’s co-owner and co-habitant, Joseph Paternostro.  While both letters are ill-reasoned screeds, you certainly may publish them, but not in violation of your own guidelines.  This is not this first time I’ve brought this (same exact) violation to your attention (see attached e-mail of 11-17-08).  At that time, you promised to “check it out.” There is evidence you’ve exercised this restriction in the past; in fact, you’ve exercised it on me (see attached e-mail of 12-17-07).  Why you don’t do it with others is beyond me. (more…)

George Sax reports from the Peace Bridge front:

Tuesday, State Supreme Court Judge Frank A. Sedita, Jr.’s courtroom was the setting for the latest skirmish in the long-running war between the Public Bridge Authority and opponents of its Peace Bridge and customs plaza expansion plans. The PBA’s plans weren’t the matter formally before the court—that was an appeal of a Buffalo Zoning Board of Appeals ruling—but it was always a backdrop to the proceedings and two months ago it was made a more prominent element by a PBA representative.

In an oral opinion delivered from the bench, Sedita overruled the zoning board’s refusal to grant a small size variance for former Buffalo Common Councilmember Alfred T. Coppola’s proposal to construct a residence at 762 Columbus Parkway. That site lies within the boundaries of the PBA’s planned expansion.

Coppola has been a leading opponent of the expansion, and an advocate for residents in or near the area slated by the PBA for acquisition and demolition. Early this year, when he announced his intention to purchase the Columbus Parkway site and erect a house, the deal was immediately fraught with political tensions and conflicts. On April 17, Peace Bridge general manager Ron Rienas wrote to Thomas Chwalinski, executive secretary of the zoning board, advising him of the PBA’s opposition to granting the requested variances. Rienas, who has appeared at a number of public forums over the last year to dispute Coppola’s arguments, told Chwalinski that since the authority “will be proceeding with property acquisition, including, if necessary, the use of eminent domain…it would be incongruent to allow for the construction of a two-story house…” Reinas also reminded Chwalinski that Coppola “is on record as being vociferously opposed to the PBA plans.” When the zoning board refused his application last month it questioned Coppola’s motives in building on the site.

According to Peter Kooshoian, Coppola’s lawyer, Sedita dismissed this consideration, saying it was inappropriate for the board to raise it. “The judge said that the city’s ordinances weren’t changed by the PBA’s plans,” Kooshoian told Artvoice. The board had indicated, he said, that his client’s building plan “wasn’t appropriate in light of the PBA’s plans. That was one of my problems with their decision.”

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Coppola said Sedita called the zoning board’s decision “capricious” and “arbitrary.” He said he only wanted to “help revitalize and preserve” a beautiful neighborhood that was threatened by the PBA’s plans.

Telephoned requests to the zoning board for a response went unanswered Wednesday. Rienas told Artvoice that if Coppola was successful in his venture, the authority would just have to add his property to those subject to acquisition.

Wednesday, a source in the city’s law department who didn’t wish to be identified said the department was waiting for Kooshoian to draft a proposed order for Sedita to sign before it decided whether to appeal.

I’m not going to refute all the arguments with which I disagree in this Buffalo News editorial, which says that it’s dumb to force the Public Bridge Authority to maintain the houses it owns on Busti, and to prevent the PBA from demolishing them until they’re finished with the environmental review process—which is required by law, as the Federal Highway Authority reminded the PBA in this letter to general manager Ron Rienas.

But I will contend that this statement is dead wrong:

None of the houses involved rises to the level of historic or aesthetic value that would make this worth a preservationist crusade.

That’s complete hogwash. The Samuel H. Wilkeson house at 771 Busti is, in addition to being beautiful, a direct link to one of the most celebrated members of one of Buffalo’s founding families. It is precisely the sort of structure that spurs preservationist crusades, and I imagine that any effort to demolish the house—last week, next week, two years from now—will encounter opposition.

Consider its history, as researched by the Campaign for Greater Buffalo:

The three-story mansion was built around 1864 by Charles Storms, whose company—Storms & Dorer, located on Lloyd Street in the Canal District—specialized in the manufacture of buckets for grain elevators. At the time, the street was named Sixth, and the Storms lived there until 1882; in 1884 the street was renamed Front Avenue, in reference to Frederick Law Olmsted’s the Front, the park which the house overlooked. Olmsted considered the Front to be the jewel of the park and parkway system he’d designed for Buffalo in 1868, the first of its kind in the country. In 1894, Front Avenue was designated a parkway, and the city’s park commissioners remodeled it with Olmsted’s vision in mind. In 1929, Front Avenue was renamed again, this time after Paul Busti, who had worked with surveyor Joseph Ellicott to lay out Buffalo’s street grid in 1804.

Colonel Samuel H. Wilkeson moved into the house in 1885, and lived there for 18 years. He was the grandson of Samuel Wilkeson, whose gravestone at Forest Lawn reads “He built the city by building its harbor.” The elder Wilkeson is credited with securing the terminus of the Erie Canal for Buffalo, and was mayor of the city in 1836, when his grandson and namesake was born.

Samuel H. Wilkeson enlisted in the army in May 1861, as first lieutenant in Company H, 21st New York Volunteer Regiment. He was 24. Twelve of his siblings and cousins answered Abraham Lincoln’s call for volunteers. Two—his brother John and his cousin Bayard—would be killed in action. None distinguished himself in service as Samuel did.

In February 1862, Wilkeson was made captain of Company C, Scott’s 900, officially listed as the Eleventh New York Cavalry. Four months later he was promoted to major; in December 1862, in recognition of daring raids in and around Harpers Ferry, he was made lieutenant colonel and joined Lincoln’s cavalry escort. In the following year, he was dispatched to Mississippi, Louisiana, and West Tennessee, where his reputation continued to grow. In charge after charge, Wilkeson’s men harried the celebrated Confederate cavalry of Jeb Stuart, 900 men versus 10,000, preventing Stuart’s timely arrival at Gettysburg, to which Robert E. Lee attributed his defeat there. Promoted to full colonel, Wilkeson was stationed in Memphis when the war ended.

On returning to Buffalo, Wilkeson joined his father in managing the Wilkeson grain elevator, built in 1858, one of the first of its kind. (It burned down in 1911.) When his sister, Louise, died in 1904, Wilkeson moved into the family mansion on Niagara Square, which was torn down after Wilkeson’s death in 1915 to make room, eventually, for City Hall.

The house at 771 Busti is the city’s only remaining structure tied to the Wilkeson family. I’d say that “rises to the level of historic or aesthetic value that would make this worth a preservationist crusade.” More to the point, I think the preservation community feels that it does.

It turns out that the PBA’s anti-spam filters didn’t let Artvoice email through last week—something neither Ron Rienas nor I could have supposed—so Rienas never received my requests for comment on this article about the PBA’s intention to demolish several homes it owns on Busti Avenue.

After some back-and-forth on that matter, Rienas identified the problem, instructed his IT department to open up the servers to Artvoice email, and provided me with this response to the article:

The City asked us to comply with a violation notice and that we be in substantial compliance by May 1, 2009. They did not say that the buildings had to be repaired. In fact, the structural engineer’s report, approved and agreed to by the City, called for the demolition of three of the six vacant structures (a seventh house is occupied by a federal entity involved in border enforcement). We advised the City that it was our intention to demolish the identified 3 in accordance with the engineer’s report and to also demolish the remaining three as there is absolutely no intent to restore and reoccupy houses immediately adjacent to a congested, poorly functioning plaza and it is irrelevant if the capacity expansion proceeds or not. The City agreed with that approach.

The City also recognized that there was a 2004 legal agreement entered into by the previous Mayor and Common Council whereby the City was to demolish these houses. This was part of a much larger agreement related to reconfiguration of the US plaza wherein the PBA contributed $2.5 million dollars in improvements Front Park and vicinity. I don’t know about you Geoff, but legal agreements do still matter to some people. In the interests of addressing the concerns from neighbors who wanted to see the houses demolished and reacting to the City which was dealing with neighbor complaints related to the condition of the houses, the PBA offered to proceed with demolition at its expense. Feel free to walk around the neighborhood within the proposed Peace Bridge project area and come to your own conclusions as to the position of the residents.

The delay in not meeting the May 1 deadline related to the City determining what, if any, approval process the Peace Bridge was subject to. The Peace Bridge is not a private property owner. While there may still be a legal question as to whether the PBA is a state agency or a federally constituted bi-national compact entity, under either scenario it is established law that the PBA, just like any other federal or state entity, is not subject to municipal jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, the City has confirmed that. Notwithstanding this exemption, The PBA does it’s very best to work with the City and neighborhood groups on both sides of the river to address concerns and to be sensitive to issues as they arise – just like we are trying to do in this case.

We have not yet issued the RFP for demolition. We need to do the asbestos survey and abatement before we proceed with any demolition.

Yesterday, Peace Bridge general manager Ron Rienas, in reaction to this article on the PBA’s intention to demolish some properties that the city ordered it to repair, sent the following email to me and 45 of his closest friends, including the mayor and members of the Common Council:

Geoff,

Back in February you e-mailed me and said : “…we are, in fact, a reputable newspaper in this community”

So perhaps you can you can answer the following questions related to your article “Demolition Derby” (below) in this week’s Artvoice:

1. Would a reputable newspaper write an article about demolition, and show in the accompanying picture, houses that are on a different street, will not be demolished, and are not even within the Peace Bridge project boundaries.

2. Would a reputable newspaper say; “Rienas did not respond to numerous requests for comment…” when you did not call or e-mail me even once?

3. Would a reputable newspaper deliberately exclude the fact there was a 2004 agreement with the then Mayor Masiello and Common Council whereby the City was to demolish the Busti Ave houses and that the reason for demolition had nothing to do with the capacity expansion project?

4. Would a reputable newspaper ignore the fact that the majority of residents in the neighborhood impacted by these houses and the Peace Bridge project are supportive of the demolition of these houses?

5. Would a reputable newspaper exclude information from a professional structural engineer’s report, agreed to by the City, that recommends the demolition of three of the six  (not seven) vacant  houses?

I could go on and on about the misrepresentations and inaccuracies contained in your article but I think you get my drift. One last point – a reputable newspaper would print an apology or at least a correction when made aware of errors or omissions. Will you??

Maybe you could actually call me (884-8636) or meet with me to get the facts.

Ron Rienas

Ron Rienas (Photo by Bruce Jackson)

The February email he refers to was part of an exchange in response to a nastily worded complaint Rienas sent regarding a blog post I had made the previous summer. The blog post was in fact just a link and a quote from somebody else’s blog, but Ron directed his belated ire at me rather than at the author herself.

In any case, I replied last night to Ron (alone, not to his entire list of friends) that I had in fact emailed him three times asking for comment, to the same address from which he had sent his whinge, and had received no reply.

This morning I forwarded him the emails (which I’ll paste after the jump) and this reply to his other complaints:

Hi Ron,

Please find below the three emails I sent from mu work computer asking for comment on this issue. I can’t imagine they were caught in a spam filter, as you and I have corresponded frequently in the past with no trouble at all, using these addresses.

As for your other complaints:

5. I specifically mentioned that three of the properties had “major roof issues” and that the city would consider agreeing to demolition of those properties. It’s in the article, Ron, what more do you want? Especially given that you did not respond to me and so forfeited the chance to share the details of the report—which I likely would have summarized in exactly the same way, anyway?

4. I’m unaware of any poll of West Side residents conducted on the issue of demolishing these houses. What independent body did the poll, Quinnipiac? Feel free to share the numbers and the sample parameters with me. (E.g. If it was a survey of residents “impacted…by the Peace Bridge project,” did it include the entire West Side or just property owners in the immediate vicinity? Which property owners?)

3. The 2004 agreement is immaterial to this article; that was five years and a mayoral administration ago. This article was about this mayoral administration’s current demand that the PBA address the houses’ code issues by May 1, and the PBA’s reaction to that demand. That is the crux of the article, and I note that in your email contains no corrections of my apprehension of the core issue.

2. See emails below.

1. I used that photo, which is the one used by the National Trust to illustrate the neighborhood’s profile on its Most Endangered list, because I thought it made sense to show the neighborhood that the opposition to plaza expansion thinks is in jeopardy. Perhaps that misled some readers to believe these were the houses that the PBA owns and wishes to demolish. I’ll print a clarification in next week’s paper.

In summary,  one of your complaints (#1) has some merit, two (#4 and #3) are senseless, and two (#5 and #2) are false. Please note that I replied to you alone, not to the entire list you compiled yesterday. That seemed to me the adult thing to do. It also seems to me that an adult would write back to that list today and apologize for being wrong and for wasting their time. Please let me know if you intend to do so as soon as possible.

Best

Geoff Kelly
Editor, Artvoice
office: 716.881.6604
mobile: 716.480.0723
www.artvoice.com

Forgive the typos. I wrote quickly.

I have not heard back from him, so I guess he’s not going to apologize for calling me a liar, as I suggested he ought to. Thus, I’m posting his email and mine and welcoming Ron into the company of churls who fail to respond to Artvoice’s request for comment and then whine publicly that we never tried to talk to them. That company includes Brian Davis, the check-bouncing councilman; Steve Casey, the bullying deputy mayor; and even Mayor Byron Brown, who has not once spoken to this reporter in three and a half years, despite many invitations to comment on numerous subjects, many of which represented opportunities to cast the administration in  a positive light.

Welcome, Ron. I’ll send you more questions regarding the proposed demolitions this weekend. I expect you’ll ignore them.

After the jump are the three emails I sent soliciting comment from Rienas.

(more…)

The New York Times featured another article by Nicolai Ouroussoff, pointing to Buffalo as perhaps “the most intriguing test case for reimagining our failing cities.” Ouroussoff laments the Department of Homeland Security plan that “would require the demolition of five and a half blocks in a diverse working-class neighborhood with a rich architectural history, from late-19th-century Italianate mansions to modest two-family homes built in the 1920s.”

Meanwhile, yesterday’s Buffalo News ran a story quoting Clarence Republican Chris Lee on the issue: “We’re beating a dead horse here,” he said. “We need to focus on the project at hand, which is to get a new Peace Bridge built.” Buffalo Democrat Brian Higgins also chimes in on the issue: “Western New York residents and businesses are sick of studies and setbacks, they just want to see a bridge built. This is a move in the wrong direction.”

Meanwhile, Representative Louise Slaughter says, “Shared border management not only presents the best possible solution to the security and legal issues facing a new Peace Bridge plaza, but also prevents the residents of the historic Peace Bridge neighborhood from being displaced.”

Which begs the question: Is Louise Slaughter the only local politician who reads the New York Times?

About eight months ago, I linked to a post on a Crystal Beach, Ontario online news and opinion site called the Strand that alleged shady dealings between the Public Bridge Authority and Town of Fort Erie officials in regard to the disposition of Fort Erie’s Mentholatum Building, which the PBA owned and had planned to lease to the town. I knew nothing of the matter, and still don’t—I don’t even know where the Mentholatum Building is. I figured I’d post what the Strand had written and see what folks thought. One guy responded, saying basically that the Strand was wrong and using unreliable sources.

Yesterday, eight months later, PBA manager Ron Rienas responded, too, by email:

Earlier this month the PBA sold the Mentholatum Building to the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara. The sale price was the same that the Peace Bridge Authority (PBA) paid for the building approx. 4 1/2 years ago.

The building was initially acquired by the PBA and used for Peace Bridge purposes to facilitate the reconstruction of the Canadian Customs Plaza. The PBA is required by Canadian law to provide facilities for the immigration/refugee function including facilities for an NGO that provides refugee services. As the reconstruction of the plaza involved demolition of buildings housing those functions we were obligated to provide alternative space. The Canadian plaza construction was completed in 2007 allowing these uses to return to the plaza enabling the PBA to dispose of the building.

As a public entity and in keeping with Town of Fort Erie plans to utilize the building for community purpose, the Board did originally offer the use of the building to Town for a $1.00/year lease but the Town would be required to pay all utilities, taxes, maintenance, etc. When there was opposition to that arrangement because it was incorrectly perceived as free rent competing with the private sector, the Board determined that it was simply not worth fighting to do something beneficial for the community. Accordingly the decision was made to sell the building but in keeping with the desire to maintain the building for a community benefit the PBA first offered it to charitable organizations before putting it on the open market. The Boys and Girls Club of Niagara acquired the property and will be using the building for its own purposes as well as leasing space to the Town and other community groups. The difference being that the capital cost of the building is now built into the rent structure costing community groups more money.

As for the other allegations in the article there was a full environmental assessment done on the building and no remedial environmental work was required. The elevator was repaired and there was  a roof repair – total cost I understood to be less than $10,000. The reference to the PBA giving “gifts ” is also not accurate as we continue, in the spirit of good corporate citizen, to make grants to groups and associations  on both sides of the river that meet pre-determined criteria.

This isn’t my bailiwick, so I’m not fact-checking Ron’s account anymore than I fact-checked the Strand’s. But I’d love to hear more from folks who know more about the issue.

The Prospect Hill-Columbus Park Association and the Campaign for Greater Buffalo today released a statement about a determination by state and federal agencies that the proposed plaza expansion at the Peace Bridge would have an adverse impact on the surrounding area:

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have declared that the controversial Peace Bridge Expansion Project would have a negative effect on the surrounding area if it goes through as currently proposed. Specifically, the FHWA has found that the project would harm the historic and cultural resources of the Prospect Hill Historic District, previously identified in the environmental review process as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The boundaries of the Prospect Hill Historic District encompass 73 contributing properties. In addition, 29 properties outside the boundaries of the District, ranging from the Peace Bridge itself to the Hutchinson Memorial Chapel and Niagara Hall, a commercial building on Niagara Street, are eligible for listing and fall under federal and state protections. Lastly, The Connecticut Street Armory, Porter Avenue, and Front, Columbus, and Prospect parks are already listed on the National Register.  Eligible properties and districts have the same protections under state and federal law as those already listed.

We’ll look into this to see how it affects the neighborhood’s bid to stop the plaza expansion.

A bridge too high…

The Federal Highway Administration says we can’t have a really tall, cable-stayed bridge across the Niagara River. But we can have a shorter cable-stayed bridge, or a really cool-looking arched bridge.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton say: Terrific! No need for any more lengthy studies!

But what about the plaza design? That’s where the rubber meets the road. Or, rather, where the road meets—and, in the Public Bridge Authority’s currently preferred plaza expansion design, bulldozes—a viable, historic neighborhood, and continues the isolation of a jewel in the city’s Olmsted park system.

Ladies and Gentlemen! In this corner, weighing in at 80,000 pounds gross weight, the reigning champion of the Buffalo News editorial page, representing one of the millions of semi trucks that will be inspected over time at the proposed US truck plaza as a result of the inflexible opinion of current Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and his boss, President George W. Bush—who suffered a loss in the ring from US Supreme Court Judges just yesterday, when they ruled against the indefinite detainment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners held without charges and without hope of fair trial—the General Manager of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority…the pugilist for public domain…the crusher of communities…the paver of parks…the master of myopia…the potentate of public works projects: Ro-onnnnn RIEN-ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

And in this corner, weighing in at a combined weight of 187 pounds, four young schoolgirls playing jump-rope wearing gas masks, similar in age to the children at D’Youville Porter Campus School #3…represented by former NYS Senator and sometimes whacky issue-driver A-aaaaaaaaaaalllllllllll Co-PPOLAAAA!

WHERE: Niagara Branch Library, Corner of Porter Ave & Niagara St

WHEN: Wednesday, June 18, 2008

TIME: 6:30—7:30

RIENAS vs. COPPOLA

Competing for the lungs of an entire community! Don’t miss this big event!