By Eileen Gallagher
A recent flurry of social media postings has added to uncertainty about whose restaurant will be located at the Chappaqua Train Station.
After hearing four proposals for the space, the town board voted four to one in favor of Love at 10514, the proposed eatery by Leslie Lampert, owner of Ladle of Love and Cafe of Love located in Mt. Kisco.
However, it was announced at Tuesday’s town board meeting that, rather than contest the referendum filed with the town by Peter and Erin Chase, (New Castle residents and restaurant proprietors who had also vied for the train station space), the town has rescinded its offer to Lampert and will reopen the process.
Town Supervisor Robert Greenstein issued the following statement this morning regarding the situation: “This year, when this Board decided to reopen the application process, the second RFP helped create a level playing field and get all of the applicants on the same page. All of the applicants saw the second RFP. All of the applicants had the same opportunity to respond to the second RFP. The overall result was more applicants, and better proposals, in my opinion, than at any other point during this two-year process. Nevertheless, we’re going to do it again. When the Board reviewed the referendum petition and weighed its options, the most prudent choice was to rescind its lease award and reopen the selection process once again. We invite all prior applicants for leasing the Chappaqua Train Station to resubmit their proposals for consideration.”
The board has directed the town administrator, Jill Shapiro, to publish a Request for Proposal (RFP) “in substantially the same form as the RFP the town published on March 19, 2014.” In addition, they also encourage all previous presenters to apply again.
More History
Initially, postings from Carla Gambescia, who proposed Via Vanti! Piccolo for the site, were mainly about the issue of the bathroom policy mandated in the lease. For example, on May 29 Westfair Online quoted Gambescia, “It’s really ridiculous that we’re even talking about this. If it was simply said to me this is mandatory, it’s like ‘fine, no biggy.’”
Gambescia recently joined the efforts led by Erin and Peter Chase for a referendum which stated in part, “Presentations were conducted in March prior to an RFP being issued; the complete reverse of what is standard practice.”
Gambescia had initially been accepted by the town board led by Susan Carpenter, after she presented her proposal in February 2013. Ironically, that proposal was not in response to an RFP. The RFP issued in May of 2012 which had long expired stated that the bathrooms were to be kept open to the public.
After several months elapsed due to station repair work paid for by the town, a draft lease was sent to Gambescia in November. Regarding bathrooms, it stated, “At all times that the Building is open for business, the restrooms to be located within the Building shall be and remain open and available for free use by the public, and not limited to use by patrons of the Concession or Business and the general public shall be permitted to enter the Building for such purpose.”
Gambescia did not agree to the bathroom stipulation. She replied, “Lease currently stipulates that the restrooms be open to the public at all times; however, beyond the hours of 11a.m. on weekdays this is not a workable condition for us as it will be disruptive for our guests and an ambiance killer; in order to get to the bathroom persons would have to pass through a gauntlet of guests seated and being served in the main dining area.”
The town’s response was, “Public access to restrooms has always been a condition of this tenancy. No change.”
Shortly before the old board’s term ended, Gambescia contacted Carpenter in an ongoing attempt to get her version of the lease approved. “The deal could easily fall apart in the next week or so, especially if this is just left to the board’s weekly meeting agenda and/or if the current board prefers to defer decisions to the new board which will probably need to reassess the entire situation for a longer period of time than I am now willing to wait… If we cannot square away the details after over a year of meetings and discussions we may need to just move on.”
Then in January of this year, she wrote to Adam Brodsky of the new town board, “Chappaqua residents and diners expect and demand quality. ‘Quality’ in a restaurant involves more than simply food and service–as importantly, it’s the overall ambiance and dining experience provided to the guests. Allowing the general public to walk through a small and intimate dining space in the evening to use its bathrooms is completely incompatible with establishing a dining experience that our guests would enjoy and gladly repeat. Such a requirement on the board’s part would be a business handicap and therefore a compromise I am unwilling to make for my guests and the Via Vanti brand.”
On February 13, Gambescia appealed to Penny Paderewski, former town administrator, for help in trying to “hold [new town board’s] feet to the fire.” She claimed that the town was “reneging on the deal with me,” and extended an invitation to experience Via Vanti. That same day she wrote to Brodsky and Rob Greenstein, “There was never anything explicitly stated by the board regarding specific bathroom hours.”
She continued, “Further, if open bathrooms, including Monday-Friday dinner hours, had been of ‘paramount’ importance to the past board, why was it a point of discussion when I first received a lease draft in November?” Paderewski, however, must have known about the importance of the bathrooms, because Dan Pozin (town attorney) wrote to her on December 2, “There are many substantive comments [in the lease comments from Gambescia], some of which question crucial issues such as availability of public access to restrooms.” Paderewski in turn forwarded to Carpenter, “Want to leave [this matter] for new board?”
The town board maintains that public access to bathrooms during the building’s open hours had been, and continues to be, non negotiable.
carla gambescia says
If you are interested in accurately reporting what happened — you might wish to speak with me. Whoever provided the information you published without seeking comment or perspective from me / Via Vanti! omitted pertinent communications and emails. It is a complete and utter distortion of the facts. It sickens me. I am happy to provide a compete picture for you and your readers. Then people can decide for themselves what really happened.
Grace Bennett says
Carla, as I noted in an email back to you too, the writer did not interview any of the vying parties. She did however attend last night’s meeting and prior to the meeting had gathered statements on record simply for historical context. If that somehow distorts any larger picture, I do encourage you to offer further comments here. Thank you for writing.
Carla Gambescia says
Anyone reading an article with the title “Offer to ‘Love at 10514’ Station Eatery Rescinded by Town Board” might reasonably expect to learn WHY that offer was rescinded by the Town Board. No such luck. Instead, the reader of this particular article is offered only these fourteen words: “rather than contest the referendum filed with the town by Peter and Erin Chase”.
Setting aside the fact that the Chases did not file a referendum but rather PETITIONS for a referendum with hundreds of resident signatures, these fourteen words only raise more questions: Why did residents sign petitions in the hope of triggering a referendum about the train station lease in the first place? How many signatures were required to trigger a referendum and how many were obtained? (Answer: 347 and 520, respectively) Why did the Town Board decide to rescind its offer rather than face a referendum?
The answers to those questions are, in essence, the “story” for an article with this headline. They would reveal a bid process conducted by the Town Board that was neither transparent nor fair, leading to a Town Board decision that defied both common sense and fiscal sense. But you will find no such answers here.
What do we get instead? We’re treated to an eleven paragraph exegesis about (I kid you not) bathrooms!
The public restrooms in Chappaqua’s train station had absolutely nothing to do with the Town Board’s decision to rescind its offer to “Love at 10514” and thereby avoid a voter referendum – a referendum which would have likely embarrassed that Board. So this looks to me like a one-sided story with an agenda rather than objective journalism.
(The issue of restroom access did serve as the pretext for an earlier decision by the current Board, when it abrogated an agreement of the previous Town Board awarding the lease to my restaurant, Via Vanti!)
Grace Bennett says
Thanks for writing, Carla. To a Chapp Mom who wrote too, please note: The policy of the Inside Press, Inc., re comments: All writers must identify themselves. With permission from the writer, comments may be further edited for clarity. Prior to publication, comments may be moderated too for any inflammatory content at the discretion of the publisher/editor.
Eileen Gallager says
Carla, I appreciate that you read my article. I am curious as to your assertion that the town “abrogated an agreement of the previous town board.” Are you disputing the fact that you never finalized an agreement with the previous town board? Or that your tentative agreement with them was not the result of a response to an RFP? If there are any untruths in the article, please specify. Again, thank you for reading.
Carla Gambescia says
Eileen, the new town board unilaterally ceased negotiations with Via Vanti! at some point in late January or early February. Councilman Brodsky always treated evening bathroom access as a negotiable lease point. In fact, he told me by phone on January 27th that he understood and supported my desire to limit restroom access to restaurant patrons at dinnertime in order to preserve a nice dining ambiance in a very intimate space. (As an aside, this also happens to be part of the agreement with the MTA in our Mount Kisco train station lease.) An interim agreement was in force between me and the town board during this time in anticipation of a fully executed lease by March 31, 2014. The interim agreement stated that if a final lease was not to be provided to me, then I was to be formally notified. This did not occur. The only reason I found out that the new board abrogated the prior board’s agreement was in response to a follow-up email I sent to Councilman Brodsky on February 11th. I hope this clears up the record. I am certain you can find the interim agreement if you have interest in what is long past relevant.
More importantly, why did you neglect the pertinent facts of what has recently happened (i.e., that the town board has now rescinded its offer to Love at 10514 as a result of resident petition signers who felt that the RFP process was highly irregular and the decision not fair)? That was your headline, yet not the subject of your article. I can understand why Team New Castle might want to change the subject, but that should not apply to a journalist.
Eileen Gallagher says
Carla, when you refer to an interim agreement, is that for the concession stand or for the restaurant which, as you are aware, are two separate issues? Also, being that you are apparently very upset about the “highly irregular” RFP process, would you say that your process with last year’s board was fair, given that there was no RFP? In one of your emails to Adam Brodsky you assert that “Via Vanti! was part of an [I am assuming you meant to write the word ‘open’] public process that lasted for 12 months. What could be more open than that?” But there was no RFP process.
Carla Gambescia says
Eileen, I have twice now inquired why you chose not to write about the ostensible subject of your article — i.e., the town board’s rescission of its offer to Love at 10514 and what prompted it to take such an extraordinary action. You have twice now chosen not to answer my question, but instead deflect by asking additional questions. Although your new questions continue to relate to old news (and reveal both your sources and bias), I will be happy to answer them once you have satisfactorily addressed the single question I posed to you.
Eileen Gallagher says
This article reports relevant and factual, as well as previously unreported, information, including late breaking news regarding the rescission.
Eileen Gallagher says
I’m taken aback by this affront to my integrity and any intimation that I pursued this story in a biased fashion. At no time was I working for or answering to Town Hall on this story. I worked on my own and then directly with Grace. The article was driven by the facts that I obtained through a FOIL request for publicly available information — the facts wrote the article. For those who aren’t familiar with this process, FOIL is New York State’s Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law §87 et. seq.), and allows members of the public to access records of governmental agencies. FOIL provides a process for the review and copying of an agency’s records. More information about the Freedom of Information Law can be found at: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/foil2.html
As Grace has mentioned, no news story is ever a complete and final picture. Carla, I appreciate your expressing your point of view which I respect.