Letter To The Editor: Safety Of Game On Sports Bubble Site Debated

According to Woodard & Curran's proposal, "based on (their) meeting of January 27, 2012" they were instructed that the Town of Greenburgh only wanted the petroleum spills at Frank's Nursery to be tested (and thus remedied.) Despite Supervisor (Paul) Feiner's claims to the media and residents over the past year that the site would be properly tested, he never planned to do so, risking the health and lives of children playing on these fields.

He has always known that the Phase II study wouldn't turn up anything unusual because he was only testing the site of the oil spill, while keeping this information from residents for almost a year. It stinks of the recent Briarcliff Schools tragedy/debacle and is unfathomable.

With Woodard & Curran's recommendation to test the soil due to the history of the site (in their Phase I ESA), it is surely illegal for the soil not to be tested as part of SEQRA analysis (which legally must be done before signing a lease), and it's absolutely immoral.

I suggest that you ask Woodard & Curran their opinion on the soil testing of Frank's Nursery for an impartial opinion.

Feiner may now say that he planned to do another study, but if so, then why has he done this partial preliminary study? And why was another study never mentioned? There's no Phase III as far as I know.

More importantly, who is going to pay for this additional study before the lease is signed? If soil borings, soil testing and ground water testing for just 6 sites that are in the same area costs $20K, how much will it cost to study the full 7 acres? Woodard & Curran should be asked the cost. Feiner can be asked who will pay. Even if it's 60 soil borings, the cost could be $200K.

Game On has pledged $125K to testing and remediation. It's doubtful they'll pay $200K just for testing and the Town doesn't have the money for this, especially with a $5-6M uninsured Fortress Bible lawsuit decision on the horizon. Game On could be asked if they will pay for any additional cost. And they should be asked if they intend to make sure that the land has been properly tested.

Residents are likely looking at a huge bill here. And the shame of it all is that Feiner had a legal proposal (leasing the land is clearly illegal) to sell the land for $950K "as is" (which was later raised to $1.5M "as is") by James Bilotta over a year ago.

Please ask these questions.

Thank you.
Simon Cohen