Robert Ryan, RIOC President since mid-June, was interviewed for The WIRE and Website NYC10044 by Ron Schuppert and Dick Lutz.

Dick Lutz: When we talked last, I asked if you had any marching orders. You said, "No," but that they surely would come. Do you have any yet?

Rob Ryan: Yes. I've been working very closely with Commissioner Lynch and we've been going over many of the different problems on the Island. The basic marching orders are to get the job done and make the place run efficiently.

DL: What's the job in the long pull?

RR: The job is a combination of things. It's a combination of being a property manager who sees that the Island is run in an efficient and businesslike fashion. It's partially being a negotiator, sitting down and meeting with developers and negotiating with them about their projects and making sure both the citizens of Roosevelt Island and the taxpayers are getting the best deal possible. It's being a facilitator, to try to solve problems and find solutions when someone comes knocking on your door with a problem, and it's also being a listener  --  someone who listens to the problem, hears what's going on, and tries to address it. It's not a very complicated job.

DL: How's it going so far?

RR: Good. I'm not the one to ask. You should really ask the citizens.

DL: Suppose we were to ask Albany? In terms of goals with regard to the finances of the Island and with regard to the way the Island is to sustain itself or be sustained. Anything specific on that in regard to marching orders?

RR: Basically, to see that we can generate, in a fashion that does not have a negative impact on the Island, as much revenue as possible, so that the Island can be as self-sufficient as... In fact, it would be great if we were generating extra revenue so that more things could be done to improve the quality of life.

DL: What are the revenue generators?

RR: There are a lot of revenue generators. There's development, but it has to be proper development; it has to be controlled development. That's your biggest single generator. There are different ideas for events and stuff that can take place and will possibly generate money, but it will be nowhere near on [the] level [of development], and those are the biggest things. There are different initiatives that can be taken that I don't want to get into totally at this moment but have to do with some of the facilities here that may be possible to use to bring in extra revenue. The steam plant  --  privatization of it  --  is one of them, which could possibly generate a good deal of revenue.

DL: Let's go back to development, since that's the main source. How do you see the General Development Plan (GDP), the lease, the master plan, the Statežeeds, Island residents, how do you see all that interacting?

RR: Well, in the past I don't think they've interacted very well. And part of it is because there hasn't been good communication. A lot of issues have to be defined and explained to both the State government and to the residents of the Island. I think if that can happen in a proper fashion, a lot of people are going to view issues in a different way than they're viewing them today. It takes work, it takes meeting people, it takes talking to people, it takes gaining their confidence.

But on the development issues, I've seen so many instances where, after sitting down and explaining things to some people, they take a whole different view. You mentioned the GDP. When I was involved years ago with development in New Jersey, I dealt a couple of different times with general development plans, and a planner out there who's really the dean of urban planners in New Jersey, Harvey Moscowitz, who used to teach at Rutgers, said a couple of things. He said General Development Plans are never to be written in stone. They're giving you an overview of or a planning sense of what can happen. And he said, "I always told my students, "Planners should always have erasers on their pencils.'" Because you're looking 20-30 years down the road. Who knows what can change in that time?

When the GDP was laid out here, the outlook was probably that this would all be developed in a 15- or 20-year period. Well, guess what: It hasn't happened. What does that tell you? Maybe the market wasn't there. Maybe there just wasn't the desire to build stuff here. Or maybe it could be that there are some problems with the GDP, and maybe some things need to be tweaked and changed. I'm not a planner. I don't know. I do have common sense, though, and I can see that if something isn't working you've got to look into it and find out why it's not working and try to solve the problem.

Ron Schuppert: So you're in general agreement with [RIOC consulting attorney] Barbara Gordon Espejo, who said that the GDP is a "loose collection of ideas."

RR: I don't know if it's a loose collection of ideas. It is a collection of ideas, and I'm not saying that it's wrong, or all wrong. I'm still looking at a lot of the stuff. I'm just saying that on Roosevelt Island often people say, "You can't do this, you can't do that, because of the GDP," and I beg to differ. I'm not saying that I'm going to do stuff, but I'm just saying I really don't think it is written in concrete like most people say it is.

RS: I don't know that most people believe it's written in concrete, but they believe that the GDP for Roosevelt Island differs a bit from planning agencies for other communities in that the GDP is part and parcel of an agreement with the City.

RR: I'm not a lawyer. I've heard both sides of the issue. I don't totally agree with that premise. I would say it was more of a vision and I would think that if a sane, rational argument was made for change on certain parts of it, I think a lot of people would listen.

RS: It has been amended in the past, and probably will be in the future. But you're somewhere between "it's written in stone" and "a loose collection of ideas."

RR: Yes, because it's a direction. It's a road sign. It's a direction in which one is supposed to head. But that doesn't mean that everything on it has to or even was planned to actually happen in that fashion. With any of these things there has to be wiggle room.

DL: You have to manage the process. How do you see doing that? How do you see managing the process of making changes in the GDP or making decisions about changing the long-range vision for the Island?

RR: Well, none of it can happen on any project really without the private sector. First, one has to come and see if there is a realistic project that works, r could work. And then one has to sit down and see how it affects the GDP, what changes it would bring about, what the reaction of the citizens is to those changes, and how a compromise or a solution can be reached.

DL: You see involving residents in that process?

RR: You've got to involve residents. You'd be stupid not to. I mean, the residents are the people who live here.

DL: You've only been here two months but I'm curious about whether you have begun to develop your own vision of where all this should go.

RR: No, because we're still... RFPs (Requests for Proposals) went out. People responded to RFPs. Whether I agree with them or you agree with them, we have a responsibility to go through that RFP process, and take everything into account. There are some things on the table I don't agree with; there are some things on the table I think could be very exciting... could be exceptional. But it isn't really for me to be the one who makes the decision on what happens. What I'm here to do is facilitate it, to manage the process, and see that the process works in a businesslike fashion, [and] that it has no negative impact on the quality of life of the citizens of the Island.

DL: To be specific for a minute, the mini-condos  --   the mini-schools being converted with a second floor. You have been through a bit of that process. Where does that stand? Where is it going?

RR: Well, right now what's coming near completion is a review of all the apartments whose views would be affected by the development, by the second story. Once that has been completed we're going to present that information  --   and this was done in cooperation with RIRA  --   we're going to present the information to the Capital Planning Committee, and then it's up to them to take a vote and make a recommendation to the Board.

RS: Will your decision stand on what the Planning Committee...?

RR: My decision? I don't take part in the decision-making process. I don't vote on the Board. I manage the process. My opinion in many ways doesn't count... Keep in mind, I came into the middle of all these projects as they stand right now. All these things were in process, OK? As I said before, I could say positive things about some of them, I could say negative things about some of the others. Does that prove anything? No, because the process has to work its way through on all these projects, because we otherwise will be putting this agency and probably, depending on how things work out, some citizens groups here on the Island in legal risk, if we don't let the process work its way through. So my view of individual development projects doesn't really matter. I'm here to work the process, not push a project.

DL: You're the guy on the ground. Isn't it likely the Board will listen pretty carefully to...

RR: They're going to ask my opinion. But that's a lot different than my pushing a project. Because what I'm going to do is sit down and give them a business overview of what the project is going to do, what it's going to achieve, what are its positives and what are its negatives.

DL: Speaking of your opinion, it's my sense from what you've said that you don't have a terrifically high opinion of some of what you've inherited.

RR: I think that would be unfair. I've just said that I'm not crazy about some of these projects.

DL: In the case of Southpoint, for example, is it your feeling that the whole possibility of the SSJ hotel project has to be worked through before some other idea can be brought forth?

RR: Well, they did respond to an RFP. They have expended a great deal of money doing their background work on this whole project. And yes, I do think the whole process has to be moved forward or we could be placed in some legal risk.

DL: Presuming it did go forward... You probably read David Kraut's comments in the last issue of The WIRE about traffic problems. Since you would be the guy managing the problem, how would you deal with traffic problems...

RR: Right now that is a question like, how would I deal with fixing a jet engine. I don't know, because I don't know what the jet engine looks like inside. We don't know. All we've seen is a conceptual idea of what people want to put there. We haven't got an "in" to all the other problems that go with it. That's what works its way through in the process. That's what we're going to discover as we go through this process. And that's why I ask everybody to be open-minded, because you get a lot of knee-jerk reactions: "We don't want this," "It's going to do this, it's going to do that." Well, until you do all the research and do all the work, how can anybody make an educated decision? I mean, it's just a question of fairness.

DL: Not to be argumentative, but if something horrendous were to happen as the result of a development project and that would be obvious from the start, then you would be in a position to point that out. I think what Kraut may have been talking about was that four cab trips for every LaGuardia visitor to the hotel project is going to generate a good deal of traffic. In some people's minds, that's a deal-breaker from the very beginning.

RR: Well, I've also heard talk that there's going to be direct ferry service from LaGuardia, and direct ferry service from Manhattan. Now, if someone can prove to me that those ferry services will exist and they are going to handle the large majority of passengers, I think it's worth going forward and taking a closer look. Right now the Port Authority is moving forward on building a big ferry terminal at LaGuardia, because it wants to move more and more people by ferry. It's great way to move if you've ever sat in traffic coming in from the airport. For anybody to say, "Well, that's just pie in the sky..." I think if you went back and took a look 30-35 years ago when the idea was first thrown out to have a Tram connecting Manhattan to Roosevelt Island, I bet there were a lot of people out there who said, "That's never going to happen, that's never going to be built, nobody's ever going to get on that."

RS: With that ferry service in mind, not specifically with regard to Southpoint, how about unilaterally, would you think of something along that line, or have you thought of it?

RR: Just general [ferry service]? Sure. All the Port Authority is doing, as I understand it, is building the actual ferry docks or terminal or whatever you call it. I think ferry service would be great, and the question is, "Is there a market for the ferry service?" We've seen ferry servce work remarkably well between Hoboken and Jersey City and Manhattan, all the points on the Hudson. We've seen ferry service working between Brooklyn and Manhattan, and obviously between Staten Island and Manhattan. The question is, I think, at this point, there's been fit-starts of ferry service on the East River. The demand wasn't there for Manhattan when New York Waterway was doing its experimental thing. I think it would be great if there were ferry service. But it's something the private sector has to feel comfortable with.

Let me add one thing about Southpoint. And this goes with the hotel project or any other project that could be considered. The thing that concerns me about Southpoint is, I have repeatedly heard from one segment of the population, "Well, this is a park. It should be a park. It should be a park." Well, I hate to tell anybody, but it's not a park. It's a bunch of rubble, stacked in there, it's a bunch of overgrown trees, and there's a big fence, if nobody noticed, with barbed wire that rolls around the top. And the only real usage it gets for the public is on the Fourth of July, when the gates get open and four thousand and some odd people go down there to watch the fireworks. What I think people have to keep an open mind to is maybe it's not going to be 100% park, and I say "maybe," but isn't 60% park or 50% park better than no park? A park that can be used. How many years has that land sat there, inactive? One of the most spectacular pieces of property in the New York metropolitan area. How many years has it sat empty? That is a disgrace, that it's been sitting there unused. Because it's (a) magnificent, and (b) could help generate revenue for this Island and solve a lot of the problems. I mean, a hotel creates jobs. Any sort of thing like that creates jobs. And maybe that would help with some of the problems we have here on the Island  --  with youth, who hang out on the streets and don't have things to do. Maybe it would help some of the other people here who don't want to or can't commute long distances. It's something that has to be looked at. Because otherwise we're failing, and by we I mean RIOC, is failing the residents of this Island by not taking a close look at any project that would consider going down there.

DL: While you're on that point, the reason I asked earlier about this notion of what would happen if a competing project came along. Suppose someone were to put together a project and bring it into the mix, do you feel obligated to dispose of the SSJ response to the RFP before anything like that is considered?

RR: I would say that project could be reviewed... not formally but informally, but I don't see how any action could be taken until we went through the process of the approval process with SSJ.

DL: So a negative decision would have to be reached on that on its merits without regard to...

RR: Let's put it this way. Let's say you have an offer in on a house and you say I'm bringing in contractors and everything else because I want to redo this house in the fashion I would like, and you're in a legal agreement, and the owner of that house all of a sudden gets someone who says, "I'm just going to buy the house as it is right now. Here's a bunch of money, won't do anything to it, it'll be fine," and that person turns around and sells the house to that other individual, and you've spent a lot of money having contractors come in and an architect come in. Would you not be a little perturbed? Would you not want to take legal action againstthe person who was selling you that house?

DL: Where does Southtown stand? What's your guess as to when it becomes real?

RR: Working through that process, we met recently with the developers to go over some more details and basically dot i's and cross t's. I would think that we would come before the Board on a vote for final in the near future.

DL: Any chance of an eldercare facility being included?

RR: There could be. I really can't discuss at this moment the plans they had. They're in negotiations on a couple of different segments of the project and it would be unfair and would in fact jeopardize those if we got into discussions of them.

RS: The representative of Hudson-Related came to a Residents Association (RIRA) meeting and was asked specifically prior to that meeting whether he would include the eldercare as part of Southtown, and he said that he had talked to [Engle-Burman] and had precluded having that facility as part of Southtown. Is it possible that he would think of doing something like that, that would preclude that [Engle-Burman] one?

RR: Look, I can't speak for the developers, and what I have repeatedly said is that a developer coming in  --   they are the people who are taking the ultimate risk in putting up the money to build the project. I'm not going to second-guess a developer on the use that he is going to have in there on the projects. As long as it's reasonable and he feels it's marketable, yes. Just as I wouldn't question if I was lying on an operating table and the doctor had me cut open, and I was conscious, I wouldn't say, "Well, Doc, shouldn't you cut a little to the left there?" I mean, he's the one who knows what he's doing. These developers know what their market is, and they're the ones who are going to have to take the risk.

DL: Let's talk about that RFP thing for a moment. On Southpoint, the RFP process is closed. What I'm curious about is whether there is a point after which you can no longer look at other proposals for some of these properties vs a point at which you can, simply because the RFP process is not closed. Was that an open RFP or was there a closing date on it?

RR: I wasn't here during that process so I...

Frank Rubino: It was so long ago, I don't recall...

DL: It would be interesting to know that because if it's still open it would seem to imply that possibilities can be considered in parallel, rather than serially.

RR: Well, I mean, in many ways you sound like there's something else out there.

DL: I don't know.

RR: In many ways... I'm not being a lawyer, but I'd call it a leading question, I mean, because, you know, there's an old Irish saying: "If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no need of a tinker," you know? This is a prime example of that. "If, if, if, if." Well, so far I haven't seen anybody with a bag of federal money and a proposal for a park come strolling in the door. If someone did, believe me, I'll be all ears.

DL: Let's wrap up he development thing by talking briefly about Octagon, where that stands, where your sense of it is at this moment.

RR: The developers, Becker and Becker, were in on that a couple of weeks ago. They walked me through the project, explained to me what they're doing. I had a number of questions and concerns and asked them to go back and look into these things and come back to me with a response.

RS: They're seeking an option only at this point, right? They came before RIRA and what they wanted specifically was a...

RR: There are options and there are options, OK? I don't think we're going to sit around and cut a stupid real estate deal. If someone came with a lot of money and in a reasonable amount of time, we might look at it, but what I'm here to do is get real deals done, and I've instructed everybody on my staff that, when working on these deals, they're to think like they're working for the private sector  --  that they're no longer working for government  --  that they have to get the best deal possible for this entity.

RS: Becker and Becker's reason for asking for an option is not just to tie up the property for a couple of years. They said if they went forward with planning there's expense involved architecturally and legally and things like that, that somebody else would jump in...

RR: Well, you see, that's exactly what I talk about: working through the process for just that reason, OK? Because nobody wants to go and spend a lot of money, and then be told, "Hey, we met a cuter girl down the road here; we're going out with her."

DL: What are your constraints? Have you been told, or do you have a sense that nobody in Albany in the Administration wants to hear you ask for capital money?

RR: No, I have not heard that. I know they would prefer I didn't, OK? But it's not that they "don't want." If it happens, it has to be for a very good purpose, OK? Nobody has said "No." What has been said is, "Try to run the place as businesslike as possible, to generate revenues, so it can be paid for by those revenues."

DL: But no constraints, if you see a need, or a good purpose?

RR: As I said in my first interview with you, if there is a good need, my job is to go and explain that need in Albany. And try to get the funds. Once again, "If ifs and ands were pots and pans..."

RS: In the past, [Assemblymember] Pete Grannis somehow got a general use grant for RIOC through the State. If that happened again, would you seek to facilitate our getting that grant or would you...

RR: It would all have to do with the circumstances and the use of the funds. It would all revolve around that.

RS: So if you thought it was needed, you would go along?

RR: Yes. I'd be a fool not to.

FR: What Ron is referring to is money that Pete [Grannis] had gotten for Good Shepherd, and we are using those funds. It has just taken a while to finalize the documents. It wasn't refused.

DL: To continue on capital funding for a moment, there are a lot of concerns, and I'm sure you've heard about them, about the infrastructure of the Island, of the possibility that three years of neglect has produced a situation in which massive repairs may be required, or some kinds of work may be required on the infrastructure that will cost a fair amount of money. Have you had an opportunity to do a fairly thorough survey of the infrastructure or to get a sense of whether the infrastructure is in serious trouble that's going to require major money?

RR: My sense is, yes, there are some problems; whether they are as big as everybody views them, I don't think they are. We're going to know more at the end of the summer when we get the report on the seawall from the Army Corps of Engineers. We're doing reviews of some other areas. Right now we're doing some work on the AVAC [trash removal] system. I've heard a lot of people shout, "Infrastructure, infrastructure." This Island is a fairly new community, in terms of infrastructure. If you jumped across to Manhattan, and you see it all the time  --  sewers and water mains that are over 100 years old that are still operational. Unless some shoddy work was done during the building and construction of the Island, I really question whether, after 25 years or so, the infrastructure should be failing. Every place has some sort of problems. Yes, you get heaving in a road. Yes, you get draining problems. That's natural. But whether it's this "Chicken Little, the sky is falling," I don't think it's anywhere near... a couple of raindrops may be falling, but not the sky.

DL: Let's jump to the subject of the Tram and the MTA. Where do you see that going? Where does it stand?

RR: Discussions are taking place. Well, actually, the MTA is reviewing the situation. I have not been privy to where they are at this time. I'm going to be finding that out shortly. I think ultimately it would be beneficial if we were able to work a deal with the MTA. It just makes sense. It would take a lot of responsibility off our shoulders. It would also create a more efficient operation, and obviously you'd be able to hook into the Metrocard, and the whole nine yards. But there are a lot of... The MTA has a lot of concerns as far as working out the whole process, but I think we should know something in the next couple of months.

RS: Have you given any consideration to the possibility that when Southtown gets built or any further development the Tram could actually turn out to be a cash cow for the Island?

RR: Sure.

RS: Was that put in when you talked to...

RR: Well, as I said, I haven't been part of those discussions. Those discussions were initiated and it was more of a due diligence, as I understand it, by the MTA. If a deal is done, there's all sorts of different ways to work it. I don't think anybody is saying, "Well, hey, no rewards can be reaped." That's one of the things that would have to be figured out. But first of all, I think th MTA is concerned more about how to fit it into their system, how to operate it. As far as I know, they don't have any other trams in their jurisdiction. And I think there are also a number of legal questions related to Metrocard, and so forth.

RS: But the Tram is yours. If the MTA thinks it's a wonderful thing they'd like to bring into the system... the Tram at this point is yours...

RR: Ours.

RS: ...that you would have the final say.

RR: I would not. The Board would have the final say, and the Board would look at the deal that was placed on the table and figure out whether it was good or bad. That's basically what it comes down to.

RS: You haven't made any decisions?

RR: No, because no deal has been presented. They're still sort of in a due diligence at this point.

RS: You've used the words, "Get that headache off our shoulders."

RR: Yeah, I mean, it is one less thing to look after. In a week, I guess, we're shutting down for maintenance, and I'm sure there's going to be a lot of people complaining, and if they were calling up and complaining to the MTA it would make my life a lot simpler and happier. Correct?

DL: Short of a takeover by the MTA, is there any possibility of a deal for the Metrocard?

RR: That's all being reviewed and I think there could be. To be totally honest with you, I don't know the whole workings of the Metrocard and why it does or does not work. I know that the system that would have to be put in is extremely expensive, and the volume of people that currently use the Tram, it would not be cost-efficient, from what I understand.

DL: You've had a fairly interesting career arc so far. A lot of fun along the way. Where do you see it going? Do you have a sense of how Roosevelt Island fits into it?

RR: I don't have a clue. If you asked me three months, two and a half months ago, "Hey, Rob, where's your career going to take you? Are you going to be out running Roosevelt Island?" I would probably have said, "You're nuts." I think one of the reasons my career arc has been fun and exciting is, I never know what's down the road. That's one of the great joys of life. All of a sudden you turn the corner and there's a new experience or a new job there. So I don't know. I'm just here to do the best I can as long as I'm at this post.

DL: Tied in with that is the whole question of what might happen with self-governance. You've been here long enough and intensely enough to know whether it's within reach for an elected Board to set policy for the Island. Do you think that is reasonable now, or are we still short of the point where residents could effectively take control of the policy-making for the Island?

RR: I think that is a question that would have to be asked of those who would be serving on that elected Board. Because one of the things I've witnessed on the Island, and it happens in any community, is a lot of infighting, a lot of groups that butt heads against each other, and you always run into situations where you find people who say, "Yeah, I'll do this and I'll do that," and when the horn blows and you need them, everybody sort of vanishes. It would all depend on the attitude and the approach of the people who sat on that Board. Great things could be achieved, or you could be stuck in a quagmire with eople arguing and different special interest groups trying to control one area or another, and not achieve anything. If I knew the answer to things like that I'd probably be sitting down in Wall Street somewhere and not here on Roosevelt Island, because I'd be able to pick stocks and ponies.

RS: If that legislation passed, and that Board existed, would you consider your position now, working for that Board?

RR: I'd consider any offer. Hey, I learned a long time ago that you must listen to what everybody says and make decisions on the merits of each and every thing.

RS: You're not locked into public service within the bureaucracy?

RR: No. I've been in the private sector. This has been my first stint in government, the past 4-5 years. I enjoy it, because I've been in positions where I can really effect change. How long I do it for, I don't know. Until I'm no longer enjoying it.

DL: If somebody came to you today and described the whole Roosevelt Island idea, and they wanted to put forward a plan for what should be done with it, by government or by private industry, would you think it would work to do a plan something like what has been done here? Or has the time passed for that sort of thing.

RR: My suggestion would have been to rely more on the private sector. I've never really sat down and looked into how the process actually worked on deciding what was built, how it was built, where, and what the mix would be. I have a sneaking suspicion that I see the hand of big government in there, more than it should have been. I have a sneaking suspicion that if it was left more to the private sector you might not have some of the problems and the complaints and the concerns that you hear today.

DL: People have asked me to ask you about a whole range of things. Somebody said, "What about pigeon control? Can't we do something about the pigeon droppings outside the post office?" That's an example of the little stuff.

RR: We're addressing it. We have a few of those plastic owls now up there around the post office and the parking garage. I don't know how many New York City pigeons have ever seen an owl or whether they react, but I figured, for $7 or $8, it was worth a spin. Venice has the problem that it's sinking into the ocean; nobody's figured out how to solve that. L.A. has the problem of earthquakes; nobody's figured out how to solve that. In New York, we've got pigeons. What can I tell you?

DL: What are the other things you're working on?

RR: Well, just basic quality-of-life stuff. It's a small thing, but we have new trash cans coming. They should be here in a couple of week. I took one look at all those concrete trash cans, and they look like hell. So we've got new ones coming. They're going to be red. They'll be wire, but they'll be fastened to the ground. That'll lighten and brighten things up a bit, and they're going to be new.

We're getting some new benches put in [and] we've repaired benches. There's some magnificent landscaping around here, but the maintenance crews need some help, so we've been talking with a couple of State agencies and with the private sector about landscaping consultants who will come in and assist our staff and give them a little help.

DL: Parking on Main Street. There are a lot of complaints that it's not being patrolled. Is that your perception?

Follow-Through One day after this interview, Ryan called The WIRE to report that he and Public Safety Director Jim Fry had walked Main Street together to check on the parking situation. "You were right," he said, referring to Ron Schuppert's assertion that a large number of vehicles are parked without stickers. "There were 47 vehicles, and only 11 were legal."

RR: No, because it is being patrolled. Some people aren't always quite honest. There are people who will take their old paper slips and they save their paper slips and they stick them in the windshield and use them when they come back a couple of days later, but we know about that and we're going after them. You know, a patrolman walks down the street checking the cars out, and someone at the other end of Main Street, where he was 15-20 minutes before, sees a car parked there illegally, probably what's happened is the guy's pulled in there since the patrolman went down the street. And, you know, I don't think we just want to have one guy or two guys spending their whole day checking the cars on Main Street. We do spot checks on a regular basis. Sure, some people are going to abuse the regulations. I think the frustration or anger should be more directed toward those individuals than our Public Safety Department, because I think our Public Safety Department is doing a fine job. I think some citizen should say, "Hey, don't go walking away without going to the meter and getting a ticket," or, "Don't park there because that's an illegal place to park."

I was walking down the street today and some kid just dropped a napkin right on the street, so I said something, and I got a dirty look. But I still said, "Pick it up. You don't litter."

DL: Did he pick it up?

RR: Yes.

RS: I think on Public Safety, you've probably gotten a letter from [Byron] Gaspard. I'm sure he's talked to you. I don't think there is a general consensus that the public is happy with Public Safety. Specifically, on parking, at one time you used to be able to drive on the Island, get a sticker, and unload your car, and things like that. I picked up my car the other morning, drove it out of the garage to pick up my wife and luggage, and there were cars there [that had been left] overnight.

RR: OK, well then, if someone sees that, they should come and talk to me, and I'll come out and take a look.

RS: I used to walk around with Mr. [Peter] Norwood [former Public Safety Director], because this is a problem that I've looked at. I'm on the Board of Rivercross, and no one can park up there and unload their vehicles. And I have walked up and down the street and taken surveys, often, and it's not people with faked IDs. No IDs at all, no stickers at all. If you walked the length of this street right now, and I haven't checked before I came in, I would say that...

RR: If they don't have a sticker on their windshield, they should have a ticket on their windshield.

RS: In the past, I got a couple of tickets, and although I didn't like getting tickets, I thought, "They're doing their job. This is how I'm able to park in front of my house and load and unload." I haven't had a ticket now in 10-11 years, and I don't think I've picked up one of those little sticker things in the last five years. The reasoning is nobody else has it, and a lot of people would...

RR: Well, I don't know, because we're emptying money out of those things on regular basis. I don't think the tooth fairy is...

RS: I would say that if you walked down there, 50% of the cars...

RR: It's a problem that needs to be addressed. I'm not denying that. I know there were some people who were towed because I had them towed.

RS: They were towed down by the Tram. There are people who don't care, and if they get a ticket they throw it away. But it bothers them if they're towed. In that respect, specifically, Public Safety is not doing its job. Especially when you see cars that should be parked at Motorgate, instead they have a sign on the car, pizza parlor, and they think Public Safety has a deal with the pizza parlor. I'm sure that's not the case, but that's what it looks like to people who walk down.

DL: What else are you doing with Public Safety? What are the issues you feel should be addressed now, and how are you going about handling them?

RR: Well, one of the things we're doing is training  - -  we're in talks with the Port Authority, to see if we can piggyback on their, some of their training programs. We're also in talks with them about used equipment, so we can save money but also have the best equipment available. A prime example is we recently got, from the State Police, a perfectly good cruiser. It has a lot of mileage on it, but how much more mileage are you going to put on driving around Roosevelt Island? The shocks aren't going to be destroyed. So there are ways we can save money and build up the Public Safety Department so it works well.

Something very fascinating I found out, and I'll give you the chart, I had heard a lot of concerns about crime on Roosevelt Island, and I had the Governor's office of Criminal Justice pull the index crime figures for ten towns around New York State. And Roosevelt Island (the figures we use are those from the precinct for index crime), we come in at 4.4 per thousand. The next closest is Hastings on Hudson, which is 8.8. I believe Mt. Kisco is 39.9 crimes per thousand. Many of the things are more quality of life than a criminal situation.

RS: Do you think the statistics may be skewed for some reason or another?

RR: Any statistic could be skewed.

RS: Can I tell you how they are skewed here?

RR: If someone can show me. We're going with the NYC precinct statistics, OK? If an index crime takes place here they'd be responding. I don't think they're skewing their statistics, OK? That's the basis of this study, the New York City Police Department.

RS: The skewing of the statistics is this way. If a crime occurs, or a possible crime occurs, in Astoria, they call 911 and a car responds and there's either a crime or not and if it's a crime it may not be an index crime, and that's how they get their statistics. And they also get their manning and personnel from those statistics. That doesn't happen here. If you call 911 for a crime outside your door here, that call does not go to the 114th Precinct, unless it's at a certain level. They call Public Safety, and Public Safety comes and chases the kids that are playing ball on your window.

RR: But is playing ball on your window an index crime?

RS: No, that's not an index crime. However, if a serious crime or something that is indexable occurs, and Public Safety handles it one way or another, and they don't respond, if it's below a certain level, it doesn't get called in to the 114. And the 911 operator doesn't have to index that crime because the 114 doesn't respond. That particular crime falls between the cracks.

RR: Well, we put out the police blotter now, and if anybody can come and show me something that is missing from the blotter, someone [had better] have some very good answers as to why it's missing. Plain and simple, OK? And, you know, I would love to see it, if it's happening.

DL: What about comlaints that recur from time to time about lack of patrol in Eastwood? Is that something that you're likely to give some attention to?

RR: Sure. I've already addressed it. I can't go into how, or it's not going to do any good that I've addressed it.

DL: On Public Safety, do you see arms in the future?

RR: I don't see any need for them. I think that if there's a situation here the New York City Police will respond quick enough. I see a community here, with a lot of kids, running around, a lot of elderly, a lot of disabled, and we've seen two incidents in the past week and a half where innocent bystanders have been shot in a shootout  --  one in Harlem and one in the financial district. I don't think there's a need for firearms with our Public Safety Department.

RS: You've inherited some problems, and an attitude toward RIOC from a lot of the residents. But you seem to be working to resolve those things.

RR: I think what I've been given is a chance to find solutions, which I see as a great opportunity. So I don't really look at it as a problem.

RS: If Dr. Blue had been sitting here, if he had said, "I'll send some flowers to your mother," people would say, "Why? Why are you doing that?" In that case, you've got a better situation. However, a lot of people have also said that because you're better at your job  --  because you're better at the PR, you're more dangerous.

RR: Look, the type of person who would say something like that is first of all somebody who doesn't know Rob Ryan, OK? Secondly, someone who would say something like that, I would think, might have their own personal agenda, whatever that may be, that they're trying to push. I mean, to say that I would be more dangerous? Is there some kind of grand conspiracy going on that they're concerned about? This is very simple stuff. This is managing a community, helping run a community. I just find anybody who would say that is just trying to stir the pot, and they don't really know what they're talking about, and if they feel that way they should come in and say it right to my face.

RS: OK, actually, I said it to a couple of people. It may be that you're going to do wonderful things for the Island. But you do have the potential for being more dangerous because you are better at your job and you're a better PR person. I mean, if Dr. Blue had said something, the community would have been up in arms and running to lawyers and things like that. Whereas, you can say it now  --  just this thing with the Tram going down, and what you're doing about it  --  if that had happened during Dr. Blue's tenure, the public would be up in arms about the things he should have been doing and wasn't doing correctly, and people were out there and making a big stir. That's one incident, where people are saying, "He's trying to do the right thing," or, "Let's give him time." Because of that circumstance, you have the potential to be more dangerous. When you talk about development, everybody on this Island who is knowledgeable knows we have to develop, and we have to put deals together. As to how we do it, that's another matter. But, everybody who knows about it is 100% for Southtown. With the other projects, there's a difference. But, if you chose to go forward with these, in spite of the fact that [you say] you're just going to facilitate them, your recommendations to the Board carry a tremendous amount of weight, and also with the Legislature because of your background, in that way we have the same train and a different conductor. Because you're good, you can be more dangerous.

RR: Flattery will get you everywhere.

RS: You can get things done.

RR: But I would be stupid to try to push things in such a direction that it's going to cause the same uproar that took place when my predecessor was here. Why would I want to go back instead of forward? Why would I want to try to do something that would irritate and annoy instead of working with the community to reach a consensus? And get things done right, so the Administration is happy, the citizens of the Island are happy, and Rob Ryan is happy because people aren't slamming him in The Main Street WIRE all the time and calling me on the phone complaining, and pulling their children aside when I come down the street. Why would I want to put myself in that position? It just doesn't make sense.

DL: A way to look at that is the following: People who've lived here for a very long time  --  10, 15, 20 years  --  feel it's a very special place, with a very special, very delicate balance in terms of race relations, economic balance, and a lot of other things, and there's a fear that somewhere in Albany or somewhere other than on the Island itself, there's an agenda for what should happen to Roosevelt Island, and that therefore, to send a "smooth operator" in, and I'm talking now about you, to slip some things in that otherwise probably would never have flown, and that kind of get done as a fait accompli so that by the time they are done, by the time people are saying, "Wait a minute, that's not what we had in mind for our Island," that it's too late. And something like the hotel at Southpoint might be an example of that, the minicondos might be an example of that.

RR: If I'm going to have to "slide this by," it's going to be like an elephant being slid down Main Street because I'm going to have to slide this by a lot of people, and they're going to have to have blinders on if they don't see what's coming... Check back with me in a couple of years. If so, you can put up my poster in the post office, OK?

RS: You've talked with a great number of people, and some of them have said, "Here are some of the things he's said," and I'd just like to clarify, and this is a paraphrase, when you were talking about development and whether we should have Southpoint and things like that, they used the Dr. Blue term and said, "Why? We're [supposedly] self-sufficient now. Why?" And you said, in essence  --  these are my words, I know you said it differently  --  why eat hamburger when you can eat...

RR: I've never used that expression in my life. I was probably saying, "Wouldn't it be better if we had income  --  revenue  --  that would help us do a lot of things that would make the Island a better place, ultimately?" I mean, concerns were raised just a few minutes ago in this interview, about where money would come from if there were infrastructure problems, OK? And would Albany give us money? Wouldn't it be great not to have to ask Albany for money? Because, some people [are] saying, "Hey, let's call up and get some money from Albany." There's this big, abstract bank vault, that people are looking to, up in Albany. You know where that money comes from? That money from Albany is actually coming right out of your wallet. It's coming out of all of our wallets. It's like when there's talk bout there's going to be a raise in the fare on the subway system, and everybody screams and yells and says, "We can't afford to pay that, it's going to cost me so much more coming out of my pocket," so instead of being raised a quarter it's raised ten cents. But it's still costing the same amount of money to run those trains, and I don't think the guys working on the subways are saying, "Well, we're going to work for free because nobody wanted to see the fare raised." You're still paying for it. It's just being taken out of another pocket when you're not looking, you know? And that's the same thing with the money from Albany. You're still paying for it. The only reason you're not paying for it is if we have revenue streams that are coming in that are other than tax dollars, that are being spent. If there's development that generates money, that is going to pick up the tab, and not tax dollars. And that's why I'm saying [we should] have a common-sense approach to this stuff, and not [have this attitude that] there's this big wad of money that Aunt Millie left the citizens of New York, and that's tax dollars.

DL: Is the State of New York the ultimate and immediate guarantor of the future of Roosevelt Island?

RR: In what sense?

DL: In the sense that the State has taken control of the Island and has...

RR: Let me say this. Roosevelt Island, as I tried to explain to someone, is one of the most intricate, complicated pieces of land in the United States. Because you've got a City involvement, you've got a UDC (Urban Development Corporation) involvement, you've got bondholders, you've got private developers, DHCR (the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal), you've got all these different entities that all mesh together to make this Island. There's all these different things that have to mesh together to make this place run. And the MTA's maybe going to be added to that soon, who knows? But it's very different than any other place, and ultimately the State has a responsibility to the citizens of this Island the way they do to citizens of any hamlet, borough, town in the State of New York.

RS: One other thing about the mini-school [conversions]. They said that we were going to try to facilitate this, but with a give-back situation. In essence, they were saying that you are going to work with management so that some of the people who are going to lose their view are going to switch apartments...

RR: No, that was a suggestion I made at a Capital Planning Committee meeting, trying to stop people from sitting around screaming at each other, and trying to get this process to work because the only way the mini-schools are going to be built, or not be built, is to work our way through this process and look at some creative ideas on how to solve the problem and make people all happy.

RS: How were those suggestions received by Miss [Diane] Wilson [who has proposed the mini-school conversion] and the apartment holders?

RR: Well, there were no apartment holders present. And that's part of the reason we're going through this review. What Diane Wilson's attorney said was they will take it under consideration but first they have to know how many apartments are affected, which I can understand. You know, there have been some other ideas thrown around. We will see. You see, the process has to work its way through, and what I tried to do was get things off the dime. I said, "What if? This is just an idea, but what if we found X number of apartments were affected, and RIOC went to [Housing] Management and said, "Look, are there comparable apartments coming on the market in the future?' Then maybe some agreement could be reached where that individual could be moved and then a big sign would be put on that window so that when someone came in to check out that apartment, it would say, "Your view will change.'"

RR:For a six-month test period, we're giving free advertising in the buses to all the merchants and any professionals on the Island. I kept seeing signs up there, "You can advertise here, contact RIOC," and there were two advertisements on every bus. A lot of the merchants are having trouble getting by. I figured this is a way to help them bring up their identity a little, ultimately, it's going to help the whole community. And ultimately, maybe it will make the idea that maybe it is worth advertising on the buses, and maybe that will generate some more revenue for us.

We're going to be doing a kind of test concert series, which starts this Wednesday [August 18], down on the pier right by the subway station, and we're going to have five Wednesday nights from 6:00 to 7:30, we're going to have a band, different types of band running the whole gamut. We're starting off with an a capella group, but we're going to run the whole gamut from classical to blues to salsa, you name it. And we're going to try that out. If people like it, what I'd like to do next summer is get a couple of private-sector groups to come in and sponsor it and have it as a regular, ongoing thing.

We're looking into having a fall festival, maybe over Columbus weekend, something like that, which will add just a lot of fun stuff for kids and adults ranging from face-painting to pony rides to scarecrow-making, with food vendors, with the idea of spurring interest to get some people to come over from Manhattan to see Roosevelt Island, as well as to provide something for the citizens. Hopefully it'll fly.

We're looking into next summer doing a juried art show on the promenade. What I want to do is more and more stuff that will raise the identity of Roosevelt Island, where Roosevelt Island will be in the papers for something positive instead of, "Gee, there's a battle on development," [it would be] "Gee, there's a great art show." Or, "Gee, we can take the Tram over and hear some great music." Stuff like that. Because, what is it ultimately going to do? It's going to benefit the residents by giving them some stuff to do, to see, to hear. It's going to benefit the merchants by hopefully bringing more people onto the Island. And it's going to benefit the developers by bringing people onto the Island and seeing that Roosevelt Island is a great place to live. "Hey, maybe I should move here," and "Maybe I would want to live in one of these buildings," or "Maybe, when they build this thing, Southtown, maybe I would consider changing my apartment and moving over here." It is something that will create a buzz, because you always have to sell the sizzle, not the steak, and this will be the sizzle about Roosevelt Island.

At the last Board meeting, a resident inquired about the state of Blackwell House. [The tenant will be] out at the end of October. And, as I said, it's a disgrace the condition that building is in, but our hands have been tied in terms of doing anything. We're going to get right in there, we're going to do some work, we're going to stabilize it. It's a landmark, it should be treasured, and I plan to see tht happen.

DL: Somebody suggested you have a town hall meeting in the Fall, not at a time of crisis, but just as an opportunity for people to come to Good Shepherd and throw questions at you and get your view on things. Does that seem viable?

RR: I don't know why not. What I try to do is have a Town Hall Meeting any day of the week. All anybody has to do is call up my secretary and say, "Can I schedule an appointment?" So I just question whether that's a big waste of time, because anytime anybody has a question, I'll just take their phone call, if it's a crisis, or we'll sit down and meet. I can usually schedule it within a day or two.

DL: A lot of people would like to listen to your answers to questions asked by other people, but they're not eager to ask questions themselves. It helps them feel reassured if they hear you answer questions asked by others.

RR: If people think there's an audience, I'll be glad to do it. I have no problem doing it. I will talk to anybody, anytime, anyplace.