The RIOC Board of Directors greeted the news of total legal victory positively Thursday morning, but two of its members hastened to reassure residents that their views are welcome on development and other matters.

Board member Leo Kayser, an attorney, gave his interpretation of what RIOC house counsel Kenneth Leitner characterized as “a very broad, sweeping decision.”

“This is an exceedingly significant finding of the Court,“ Kayser said.  ”There was not standing [a legal term for a right] for people who are not privy of contract.  When the Board and the Corporation enter into contracts for the sale of leases and various dispositions that it intends to make, people do not have standing to go to Court to challenge that contract if they're not party to it.

“The Court found that these people are merely incidental, and not intended beneficiaries within the concept of the third-party beneficiary law, under New York law... that the people who are going to go to Court and challenge this are essentially not entitled to even be in Court for that challenge.”

Furthermore, Kayser observed in interpreting the Court decision, the General Development Plan is effectively moot and cannot be used by residents to challenge RIOC decisions on development:  “The Court expressly observed that the General Development Plan was illustrative only, and does not indicate the final form or location of the improvements...  The Court was finding that the original vision was to give a lot of flexibility to the Board with respect to how it was to develop the Island and how the development plan was to be construed by the Board.”

“This Board has the authority to, in its discretion, balance and weigh different manners in which to implement the purpose for which the [Roosevelt Island Operating] Corporation exists.  And as long as we are acting in good faith and reasonably apply our judgment, certainly with the assistance of experts, it gives a wide swath of authority to the Board to delegate to the [RIOC] administration the ability to proceed.”

But Kayser hastened to affirm that the RIOC Board wants resident input:  “I think it's important that the various people on the Island who have an interest in working... in giving input with respect to the direction that we go, know what their legal standing is, and what the authority of the Board is.  [It is] all the more reason for this Board to be available for input from people because it's through the Board that people can express their ideas and have a chance for give and take.  And so I'm sure the Board members are going to be very available to the people on the Island for input, as we proceed and have these public discussions on different contracts that come up, and as we begin to focus on how we're going to be handling dispositions of properties.“  Kayser added, “At the same time I think that the Appellate Division [of the State Supreme Court] has given a delineation with respect to the authority that exists in the Board.”

[Kayser's full statement will be available on Website NYC10044, at www.nyc10044.com, along with those of his Board colleagues.]

In his comments, Kayser said the Court decision “will smooth the way for what the Board will be doing,“ and he made reference to an interview he gave to The WIRE (available in full on line at www.nyc10044.com/wire/2107/wire2107.html) in which he outlined a new “market-driven“ plan for RIOC to lease Island parcels to developers, with an emphasis on “pre-capitalization” – that is, advance payments by developers that are intended to fund RIOC operations, including maintenance of the Island and its infrastructure.

Resident Board member Patrick Stewart, who was President of the Roosevelt Island Residents Association when it attempted to join, as an intervenor, in the law suit against Southtown, asked RIOC Chief Financial Officer Patrick Siconolfi to prepare an analysis of what the litigation over Southtown has cost.  ”My questions are basically to do with facts, notwithstanding the circumstances, however, of contention, animosity and so on amongst the community with regard to this...

”Essentially, what I'd like to know is, what is the cost of such litigation?  I would like to know what RIOC's attorneys cost, what the developers' attorneys cost, what the Roosevelt Island Residents Association's attorneys cost, what RIRSD attorneys cost...  Has there been any loss of revenue to the community as a result of these lawsuits, namely ground rents and so on?  The reason I ask these is certainly on behalf of the Board, [but] it is also certainly on behalf of the community.  The community has in fact contributed time, money, effort, sweat and tears to this exercise.  I think that it's important that we all understand these facts so that in future we may perhaps take a more reasoned approach to problems that divide us, problems that need solution, and have a way of getting to those solutions on an amicable across-the-table kind of basis.

“I suspect, for myself only, there was a tremendous amount of effort involved here, and I also suspect a tremendous amount of money that would have come to the community that has been spent on multitudes of attorneys and lost revenue.  So if [at] some point in time, you could give us some sort of idea of what this has cost this community – the people of this community – I'd be grateful.”

Siconolfi responded that he would prepare a report for the Board's next meeting, not yet scheduled but likely to occur near the end of January, according to Kenneth Leitner of the RIOC staff.

The only other Board member to comment on the decision was David Kraut.  ”The people, and any citizen, and any entity always have the right to bring a lawsuit.  We understand that.  And we can talk in terms of hypothetical losses of revenue while a lawsuit is resolved.  In one sense, it is correct that we think this way.  In another, it is not correct that we think this way because people always have a right to sue.  And I, as a member of this Board, am not prepared to take the position that people do not have a right to sue.

”Having said that, I still regret that the Residents Association saw fit to attempt to intervene in this suit, because unfortunately we now have a court decision – unfortunately for the people of this Island and for the future of this community... a court decision which says that the Residents Association has essentially no say-so in these matters... when in fact the Residents Association has always had some say-so in these matters, based essentially on the political process and a certain amount of moral weight.

“We're now in a position where this Board, as an entity, can tell the Residents Association, 'We simply don't have to listen to you,' and I regret very much that one of the results of this lawsuit is that this has come to pass.”

Attorney Robert Chira declined to comment on behalf of the Alternative Southtown Design Committee.  The RIRSD Steering Committee issued a statement, as did RIOC outside counsel Stephen Kass, and Hudson Companies' David Kramer.  Click here to read their statements.