RIOC had refused, for some weeks, to return [RIRA attorney, with DeForest & Duer] Jeff Glen's phone calls, so we finally appealed directly to Steve Hicks [Assistant Commissioner of the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal], who is Designated Chariman of the RIOC Board for Joe Lynch [Comissioner]. Mr. Hicks intervened, and Mr. [Ken] Leitner [RIOC in-house Counsel] returned Jeff's call that same day, and explained that RIOC was obtaining outside Counsel on this matter, and a final choice of law firm had not yet been made.

Another ten days was then lost on this same issue. On Friday, March 3, 2000, Jeff Glen of DeForest & Duer met with Steve Kass, outside counsel and Ken Leitner, General Counsel for RIOC.

Steve Kass's position is that Blackwell Park's reduction to three acres was a de facto amendment [to the Island's General Development Plan] made in the 1970's, and that the [New York City] Board of Estimate's failure to recognize that reduction is explicable in many ways. Jeff replied that he himself could not think of one, and would Mr. Kass like to share his thinking, and Mr. Kass predictably responded that he would not.

The original missing three acres of Blackwell Park do lie under Eastwood and Rivercross, i.e., Northtown Phase I was overbuilt to the South onto the original Blackwell Park acreage. Many documents bear this fact out.

However, we feel, and DeForest & Duer feels, that the 1990 amendment changes that.

It is important to note that RIOC does not, at this point, take the position that they can violate the GDP.

Rather they are preparing to argue that the amendment can be interpreted differently than the way we are interpreting it.

Kass asked what RIRA's objection is to the Southtown Plan and that we should be happy with the new soccer field.

Kass stated the reason no one wants to build the Ramati Plan is that no one believes that the Island can support two core commercial centers. They feel that by separating Northtown and Southtown the present businesses would be hurt. There are several arguments against this position.

Jeff believed as of last Friday morning that RIOC would meet with RIRA to allow us to express our concerns. They then will either listen to us or discuss us. No promises.

Cases pending have been brought by Rivercross resident Robert Chira, an attorney, on behalf of the Alternative Southtown Design Committee, and by Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development (RIRSD).

The cases pending will be heard by [New York State Supreme Court] Judge Parness. Briefs are due the second week of April. Arguments will begin in June.

If RIOC refuses to listen to RIRA's position and adhere to the GDP then we will issue a letter of intent to sue and prepare to intervene on the pending lawsuits (which Jeff believes will be combined by Judge Parness). It will then be Parness who makes any final decision that is made.

Intervening on the existing suits is by far the cheapest way to proceed. To intervene we must demonstrate that (a) we have separate and different interests from the existing Plaintiffs, which we do as the elected representatives of the Island residents, and (b) that both the arguments and the evidence we are going to present is materially different from those arguments that are listed in the existing suits. Both of these restrictions are easily filled in our instance. Jeff remains entirely confidence that we have a very strong argument with plenty of evidence to support it.

March 8, 2000: Jeff Glen called. He has not heard from Kass and he is preparing a letter of intent. Although much of the work Karen Stewart has done will save us huge sums of money he feels it will be ten hours of work on the brief on the Board of Estimate decision. Then he will need to do a Memorandum of Law and go before Judge Parness. He believes it is likely to cost somewhere between $6,000 and $10,000. The Common Council must decide if we want to proceed, and to raise the additional money.

Our case focuses on the six acres of land designated as Blackwell Park by the Board of Estimate in 1990. I realize that I am asking a lot from the Council in not offering you the specific evidence or arguments we hold on this matter. It is, however, so critical that none of it get back to RIOC that I am going to ask you not to ask. RIOC's choice of the two lawyers demonstrate that they are focusing on the environmental cases (they are strong environmental lawyers, they are not land use lawyers) rather than the land use issues.

–Joan Christianson